Geagea: There will be no peace in Lebanon as long as the “resistance” remains outside the framework of the state

Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea stressed that “Sheikh Naim has every right to declare whatever position he wants, but he has no right to obstruct the course of the state, especially since Hezbollah has, for nearly forty years, ignored the existence of an authority in Lebanon that stems from the popular will through parliamentary elections, which produce governments that take decisions that must be implemented.”

In an interview with MTV, Geagea noted that “Sheikh Naim’s latest message included falsehoods that he should review ‘for the sake of his credibility,’ including his claim that Lebanon constitutes, for the Israeli authorities, part of Greater Israel. So I say to him: ‘You remembered one thing and missed many others.’ Israel abandoned that dream and withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, and it was his party that brought it back. Enough deceiving his supporters, who alone remain ‘deceived’ by him.”

As for Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri’s position on the negotiations, Geagea said that “Berri is the Speaker of Parliament, not the head of the executive authority that is responsible for the negotiating process. When the outcome of the negotiations is sent to Parliament, he can, as head of a parliamentary bloc, give his opinion on it. He is the Speaker of the House, not the speaker for all MPs, and he is free, like Sheikh Naim, to take whatever position he wants, provided he does not obstruct.”

Asked whether it is useful to sit at one table with the Israeli side while Hezbollah refuses to hand over its weapons, thereby depriving official Lebanon of its source of strength, the Lebanese Forces leader replied: “The only source of strength is legitimacy, while Hezbollah, after the government’s decisions of August 5 and 7, 2025, has become illegitimate, placing the government in confrontation with a force outside the law.”

He continued: “The legitimate authority must implement its decisions without needing to enlist international force, but it is clear that the deep state is working to obstruct the decisions taken by the authority, sometimes under the pretext of fear of strife, even though implementing those decisions is possible without entering into internal wars, as the state has the means to achieve that.”

Asked whether he was satisfied with the level of Lebanese representation in the negotiations, he stressed that “the issue is not representation but content.”

He added: “President Joseph Aoun is the one who provides the content, but we must always pay attention to the balance of power, which is not in Lebanon’s favor, as it is unable to impose its conditions because Hezbollah dragged Lebanon into a battle beyond its capacity, as evidenced by the expansion of the Israeli occupation.”

Regarding the photo that President Joseph Aoun refused to take with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Geagea said that “the judgment on that belongs to the President of the Republic, and perhaps it is better for the meeting to take place after progress has been made in the negotiations. But the President must do what is necessary to make the negotiations succeed, because we have never lived in peace for decades because of this ‘resistance’ and its abuses.”

In response to a question, Geagea denied that Foreign Minister Youssef Rajji was being excluded from the atmosphere of the negotiations, saying that “he is informed of their details either directly by the president or through the circles of the presidential palace.”

As for his view on the amnesty expected to be discussed in Parliament, he pointed out that “we went through a similar phase during the era of Syrian tutelage. We all knew the state of the judiciary, especially the military judiciary, at that stage, and we know what happened to me and to some of my comrades, from the dissolution of the party to the arrests that included everyone who opposed the Syrian regime. So, in principle, I am against any general amnesty and support accountability and the application of the law. But since the law was being applied in an unjust manner, we must not stand in the way of the amnesty, according to the formula that will be agreed upon.”