Lebanese Speaker Berri: Framework Deal with Israel is '10 Times Worse' Than 1983 Accord

Nabih Berri’s rejection of the framework agreement marks a significant deepening of the political rift in Beirut. Speaking to *Al-Akhbar*, Berri described the document not as a sovereign pact but as a list of "demands" that fail to preserve Lebanese rights. By invoking the 1983 accord—a treaty signed during the First Lebanon War and later abrogated under intense Shia and Syrian pressure—Berri is signaling that the current Shia political bloc views the Washington-led diplomacy as an existential threat to its standing and the country's unity.

Warnings of Internal Strife

Berri’s rhetoric focused heavily on the danger of domestic instability, using the term "fitna" to describe the potential for civil strife. He cautioned that the agreement is designed to "sow discord among Lebanese" to the benefit of the "Israeli occupation." Despite the severity of his warning, Berri emphasized that his camp would not be drawn into street protests or chaotic reactions that could be exploited to destabilize the state. Instead, he indicated that Amal movement ministers would participate in cabinet meetings to present their opposition through official state institutions.

Strategic Context and Regional Alignment

The Speaker's stance aligns with a broader rejection of the U.S. proposal by the Shia axis, which remains tethered to the "Islamabad Agreement"—a separate memorandum of understanding between the U.S. and Iran. This position puts Berri in direct confrontation with Christian leader Samir Geagea, who recently hailed the framework as Lebanon's most important political step in 50 years. As the IDF continues to dismantle Hezbollah infrastructure in southern Lebanon, the battle over the terms of a final settlement has become the primary front in Beirut’s halls of power. Berri also addressed rumors regarding the dismissal of the Lebanese Army commander, calling the military a "red line" and a guarantor of national stability.