Former Lebanese President Amine Gemayel reflected on key moments in Lebanon’s history, warning that existential threats have continuously jeopardized the country's identity and sovereignty. He also expressed cautious optimism that Lebanon may be on the verge of a historic opportunity to reclaim its statehood, provided that internal unity prevails.

Gemayel, who entered political life in the 1960s, described his career as intertwined with Lebanon’s turbulent history.

“Each stage of regional and international conflict brought a direct challenge to Lebanon’s existence and the very concept of it as a sovereign state,” he said in a wide-ranging interview with Independent Arabia.

For Gemayel, the battles Lebanon has faced were not just political skirmishes, but rather they struggles for survival.

Early in his political career, Gemayel faced what he called “the Nasserite phase,” referring to Egyptian President Jamal Abdel Nasser’s push for Arab unity. He argues that this project posed a serious threat to Lebanon’s independence.

“The 1958 uprising was not a mere internal revolt,” Gemayel said. “It was a direct result of efforts to subject Lebanon to a regional political trajectory that was incompatible with our national fabric. Our country was one of the first victims of Nasser’s unification drive, which caused sectarian and security tensions that nearly brought down the fledgling state.”

Gemayel reserved his harshest criticism for the period of Palestinian armed presence in Lebanon, which he called “the most dangerous attempt to dismantle the Lebanese entity and turn it into an alternative homeland.” Gemayel insisted that what took place was a strategic attempt to settle refugees permanently in Lebanon at the expense of its demographic balance and national sovereignty.

“The South was transformed into a military platform for launching cross-border operations against Israel, which gave Tel Aviv justification for the 1978 Litani Operation and the 1982 invasion that eventually reached Beirut,” he said.

Gemayel became president in 1982, following the assassination of his brother, President-elect Bashir Gemayel, on September 14. His tenure began during one of the most dangerous chapters in Lebanon’s modern history, with Israeli forces occupying large parts of the country and Syria deeply involved in Lebanese affairs.

Despite the collapse of state institutions and overwhelming foreign intervention, Gemayel maintains that Lebanon endured as it managed to survive as a sovereign entity.

He traced Lebanon’s resilience through several milestones: the 1958 crisis, the confrontation with the Palestinian factions, resistance to Syrian hegemony, rejection of complete foreign tutelage, and eventually the challenge of Hezbollah’s weapons.

But for Gemayel, resistance was never just about arms.

“Lebanon survived by holding on to its identity, its constitution, its pluralism, and the concept of the state,” he said. “This idea is what preserved the essence of Lebanon, even during times of war, foreign intervention, and political assassinations.”

The cost of that resilience, however, was steep.

“The price was blood and division,” Gemayel said. “But the one red line we never crossed was the dissolution of Lebanon into foreign agendas.”

The Gemayel family, he noted, paid dearly for that principle. His brother Bashir was assassinated before taking office. His son, Minister Pierre Gemayel, was gunned down in 2006. Bashir’s young daughter Maya was killed in a car bombing at age two. Other relatives, including 16-year-old Manuel and Amin Aswad, also lost their lives.

“This family from Bikfaya has given its share to keep this republic standing,” Gemayel said, invoking the family’s ancestral home village.

Despite the losses, he believes Lebanon has demonstrated an enduring lesson: “Lebanon cannot be defeated if it is internally united, no matter how great the dangers.”

Gemayel, now in his 80s, views the current political moment as an inflection point. He voiced rare optimism, suggesting that Lebanon could be entering a new phase.

“For the first time in decades, existential threats are receding, and we may finally have a chance to rebuild the state,” he said.

He warned that Lebanon had squandered many opportunities in the past due to internal strife, but today’s regional calm and the availability of capable Lebanese figures present a rare alignment.

“This is a real opportunity for Lebanon,” he said. “If we know how to seize it, we can build the most beautiful country in the world.”

Gemayel quoted a line he once delivered at the United Nations in 1983: “Give us peace, and we’ll give you what amazes the world.”

He emphasized Lebanon’s highly educated diaspora and the country’s human capital as the main engines for rebuilding, insisting that intellectual capital alone could restore both the state and the economy, if political stability is achieved.

Addressing Hezbollah’s arms, Gemayel approached the issue not as a political debate but as a strategic dilemma.

“What is the purpose of this weaponry today? Is it still usable?” he asked, arguing that while Hezbollah remains militarily powerful, it has lost the ability to effectively use its weapons in the current geopolitical environment.

“The arms once promoted as tools of resistance against Israel have become a burden for the party itself,” he said, questioning the cost, function, and future of Hezbollah’s arsenal amid rumored U.S.-Iranian understandings and shifting regional realities.

Any renewed use of the weapons, he warned, would pit Hezbollah against its own domestic environment, which no longer tolerates arms outside the state framework.

“Hezbollah must recognize that it has reached a turning point. These weapons need to be integrated into the official state institutions. They can no longer serve as a negotiation card,” Gemayel said. “Strategically, their role has faded.”

In his view, if Hezbollah wants to participate in Lebanese politics, it must abandon its military posture.

He went further, suggesting the group’s political future hinges on how it handles the weapons issue.

“Anyone betting on arms today will lose everything,” Gemayel warned, citing a strict new regional order and an unyielding international ceiling.

Gemayel concluded on a hopeful yet sober note.

“This phase is unlike anything that came before,” he said. “Hope has never been stronger than it is today.”

Yet that hope, he insists, comes with conditions: political factions must let go of narrow interests, and all national energies must be rallied around a unified state project.

Only then, he believes, can Lebanon finally emerge from the shadow of its past and begin to chart a sustainable path forward.