Tension is not new in the relationship between "Hezbollah" and "the Free Patriotic Movement," especially after the Cabinet session was held under the party's cover, disregarding the opinion of "the Movement" and its president who rejected the invitation. This rejection is based on the claim that the session is unconstitutional under a caretaker government and cannot apply the constitutional article that assigns the powers of the president in times of presidential vacancy, knowing that the prospect of agreement between the two parties on a serious candidate for the presidency remains blocked.
In this context, the president of the Free Patriotic Movement, Gebran Bassil, raised the stakes during a press conference, directing arrows toward his primary ally without specifically naming him, hinting at a desire to reconsider the relationship and the understanding regarding what Bassil considered a breach of the promise made by the party, which was not to attend emergency government sessions if the Movement's ministers were absent, according to him.
In response, the party issued a statement reacting to Bassil's comments, indicating that it "did not promise anyone that the caretaker government would not convene unless all its components agreed to meet," expressing astonishment at the language of betrayal and the unwise conduct of Bassil and some circles within "the Free Patriotic Movement." The latter retaliated with a statement criticizing the ambiguity and lack of clarity in Hezbollah's leadership.
In this context, member of the "Strong Lebanon" bloc, MP Cesar Abou Khalil, pointed out that "the message was received in the presidential election session on Thursday, through reducing the dominance of the blank votes, which equaled the votes of MP Michel Moawad." Abou Khalil confirmed in a statement to "Anbaa" electronic that "the press conference achieved its goal of expressing our rejection of the cabinet session and our non-participation in the session that was scheduled to be held on Wednesday and was later adjourned." He noted that "there is no time for disputes, and disagreements with friends should be resolved quietly among us," refusing to comment on the content of the party's statement.
Thus, the question remains whether the head of the Movement wants to unleash his freedom from the party's constraints through these practices or if this serves as a pressure tactic on his ally to fulfill his conditions and impose his will in the coming days.
