Former President Amine Gemayel said the May 17, 1983 agreement with Israel was undermined by last-minute conditions imposed by Israel, Syrian obstruction, and shifting regional dynamics, arguing that Lebanon is now in a far stronger position to pursue negotiations with Israel than it was four decades ago.

In an interview with L’Orient-Le Jour, Gemayel revisited the failed accord, which he described as a missed opportunity shaped by external pressures and regional rivalries.

The former president, who led Lebanon from 1982 to 1988, was the main architect of the May 17 agreement, intended as a first step toward peace with Israel before collapsing under pressure.

Asked about the circumstances of the deal, Gemayel said his priority upon taking office was restoring Lebanese sovereignty and ending the presence of foreign forces.

“My main objective was to liberate Lebanese territory from all foreign armies and restore Lebanon’s sovereignty,” he said, adding that negotiations with Israel were launched with U.S. backing at the time.

He said the negotiations initially produced an agreement that, in his view, safeguarded Lebanon’s core interests.

“We did not concede on any point that could affect Lebanon’s sovereignty or freedom,” he said.

However, Gemayel said Israel introduced new demands at the last moment, including in a letter dated May 17, 1983 from senior Israeli official David Kimche, which called for the simultaneous withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon.

“This effectively gave Damascus a veto,” he said, noting that Lebanon had no control over Syrian troop withdrawal decisions. He added that Israel also demanded the release of Israeli prisoners and the return of remains, which were located in areas outside Lebanese control.

According to Gemayel, then–U.S. President Ronald Reagan intervened and pledged to help resolve the outstanding issues, while also seeking to influence Syria through regional diplomatic channels. American support, he said, was confirmed in writing on the day of the signing.

Explaining Israel’s position, Gemayel said he later learned from French sources that Washington had frozen arms contracts and financial aid to Israel following its 1982 invasion of Beirut, creating incentives that complicated implementation of the agreement.

“Israel did not truly want to implement the agreement,” he said, arguing that its priority was the lifting of U.S. sanctions in Congress.

Faced with what he described as a dilemma, Gemayel said he opted not to sign the agreement despite parliamentary approval.

“Signing under such conditions would have been a mistake,” he said. “Today, I have a clear conscience because I did everything I could despite the difficulties.”

Asked who was responsible for the agreement’s failure, he said: “It was mainly the Syrians, the Israeli conditions, and the regional and domestic circumstances that obstructed the process.”

He also noted that the agreement was formally described as a framework for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon rather than a comprehensive peace treaty.

“It was a diplomatic way of bypassing major obstacles,” he said, adding that deteriorating security conditions ultimately prevented its implementation.

Looking at current developments, Gemayel said Lebanon is entering a more favorable phase as it prepares for renewed engagement with Israel.

“This time, there are strong chances of success,” he said, urging President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam to “pursue negotiations with Israel to the end and rally as many Lebanese as possible to this process.”

He argued that domestic opposition is now less unified than in the past, saying there is “a near-consensus” within Lebanon compared to the divisions of the 1980s.

On Hezbollah, Gemayel said its position is ultimately determined by Iran.

“Hezbollah’s position is clear. In reality, it is not its own position, but Iran’s,” he said, adding that any future U.S.-Iran understanding could alter the group’s stance.

He also pointed to what he described as a shift in Lebanon’s internal balance, noting that opposition to such a process today is less cohesive than during earlier political crises, including the 2006 confrontation over the government’s authority.

Addressing criticism faced by Prime Minister Salam, Gemayel said political backlash was expected.

“That is normal. I expected it,” he said, adding that the presidency being spared direct attack suggested an openness to continued communication.

He also highlighted the role of Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, describing his position as relatively moderate and suggesting he may be keeping channels open for a potential settlement.

“Since the beginning of this crisis, Mr. Berri has adopted a moderate position,” Gemayel said, adding that his stance indicated he may see “a positive outcome” emerging from ongoing diplomatic efforts.

Gemayel concluded that Lebanon’s current diplomatic moment could succeed where past efforts failed, provided regional dynamics are managed and internal consensus is broadened.