“Lebanon Debate”
In a political stance from the government palace, the head of the Lebanese Phalange Party, MP Sami Gemayel, defended the performance of the President of the Republic, Joseph Aoun, and the Prime Minister, Nawaf Salam, in approaching the framework paper file, considering that the campaign targeting them is not based on serious facts, and stressing that what is required today is the implementation of what was stated in the agreement in a way that guarantees Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanese territory, and the state’s restoration of its decision and sovereignty.
Gemayel said, in a statement from the Government Palace, that “all the major positions taken by the President are very consistent with the positions of the Phalange Party,” noting that he expressed to him “pride in his performance and in his person, at the level of transparency, cleanliness, patriotism, and the deep Lebanese feeling that he enjoys.”
In his response to the campaigns targeting President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam against the backdrop of the agreement or the framework paper, Gemayel asked the critics of the agreement: “Why didn’t you do better?” He considered that whoever had “an arsenal, missiles, and fighting force” did not use them to protect Lebanon, but rather “involved Lebanon in the war,” as he put it.
He added that this arsenal “was never used to defend or preserve Lebanon,” considering that it was used “once to support Bashar al-Assad, once to support Sinwar and Hamas, and once to support Khamenei and Iran,” noting that “three support wars over the years led to the fall of Lebanese youth, and ended in 2026 with Israel controlling 15% of Lebanese territory,” according to him.
Gemayel believed that “the Lebanese state and diplomacy, despite not possessing missiles or an air force, and despite the great disparity in the balance of military power, were able to extract a commitment from Israel to withdraw completely from Lebanese territory, on the condition that wars of support do not return, and that Lebanese territory is not used to defend issues that Lebanon has nothing to do with.”
He stressed that what is being asked of Lebanon is, essentially, in the interest of the Lebanese, that is, “restoring sovereignty, preventing the presence of any armed militias on Lebanese soil, enabling the Lebanese army to control the entire territory, and preventing the movement of any weapon outside the decision of the Lebanese state.”
Gemayel continued, attacking the critics of the agreement: “You have implicated us in this occupation, and you have implicated us in these wars, and the least you should do is shut up and let the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister work to save you, save your people, and save Lebanon,” considering that “the objections raised about the agreement are empty and incorrect,” and that “the real disagreement is not over the form of negotiations, but rather over the refusal to return the state to its sovereignty.” And her decision.”
He pointed out that some critics focus on the issue of indirect negotiations, considering that this proposal does not change the essence. He said that “the whole problem for them is that the negotiations are indirect, as happened previously, where the parties are in the same hall but communication takes place through the American mediator,” adding that this discussion does not change anything in the content of the primary goal, which is securing Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon.
Gemayel stressed that “the truth is that these people do not want the state to restore its sovereignty, and they do not want the Lebanese army and the Lebanese state to regain their decision over all Lebanese lands,” considering that the goal of clinging to weapons is “to preserve Iran’s ability to use Lebanese lands, the Lebanese people, and the blood of the Lebanese to defend itself when needed.”
He concluded by stressing that what is required today is the implementation of the agreement, and for the Lebanese army to bear its responsibilities, pointing out that the next stage must begin with Israel’s withdrawal from an experimental area and the Lebanese army’s entry into it “more seriously,” surveying these areas and providing proof to the international community and the United States that Lebanon is doing its part.
Gemayel said, “The United States is keen on the success of this agreement,” calling for taking advantage of this international interest. He added: “It is not every day that the largest superpower in the world is so interested in Lebanon, and keen on a ceasefire and preventing Israeli attacks.” He concluded by saying: “Whoever has an alternative should present it and convince us of it, and whoever does not have an alternative should remain silent.”
