Kataeb Party leader Samy Gemayel met President Joseph Aoun on Thursday at the presidential palace in Baabda, leading a delegation that included members of the Kataeb parliamentary bloc as well as representatives of the party’s Political Bureau and Central Council.

Following the meeting, Gemayel said the visit was intended to express political support for what he described as Lebanon’s “legitimate institutions” as they work to reassert state authority and restore sovereignty.

He framed the moment as a broader political turning point after decades of weakened State control.

“After 36 years—since October 13, 1990, the day Lebanon lost control over its own destiny—the State is now reclaiming that decision-making authority,” he said. “Today, Lebanon’s legitimate institutions are determining the country’s future based on the interests of Lebanon and its people. We stand with Lebanon first and last.”

Gemayel said the current national debate has largely centered on the Washington-brokered framework agreement, noting that reactions to it reflect deeply divided interpretations of Lebanon’s political future.

He grouped the responses into two main categories: outright rejection of the State and technical or “academic” over-analysis.

“Some criticize the agreement because they do not want a State, and frankly their opinion does not concern us,” he said. “Others, acting in good faith, are treating the agreement as though it were an academic exercise, scrutinizing every word and every clause.”

He urged what he described as well-intentioned critics to step back from narrow legalistic debates and instead consider the broader political implications of the deal.

“I urge those with good intentions not to look for loopholes to criticize, but to recognize the significance of this historic moment and the foundations of the agreement itself,” he said. “Those offering theoretical critiques should first understand what they are talking about.”

According to Gemayel, the framework agreement represents a path toward two parallel objectives: Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and the restoration of full Lebanese sovereignty without a return to war.

“This agreement establishes the framework for Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon and for the restoration of the State’s sovereignty over all Lebanese territory—all without war,” he said.

From his perspective, opposition to the agreement effectively translates into opposition to those outcomes.

“Anyone who criticizes the agreement is effectively saying either that they do not want Israel to withdraw from the south, or that they do not want the Lebanese State to regain its sovereignty,” he said.

He went further, arguing that rejecting the deal would imply acceptance of armed actors operating outside state authority and the continuation of conflict.

“They are preferring instead for weapons to remain outside State control, the State to remain hostage, and the war to continue,” he said. “Anyone who opposes those outcomes should support the agreement because there is no alternative.”

Gemayel then outlined what he described as Lebanon’s immediate national priorities, including stability, reconstruction, and economic recovery, alongside the return of displaced residents.

“We want Israel to withdraw. We want to restore the State without war,” he said. “We want displaced residents to return to their homes, reconstruction to begin, investments to flow back into Lebanon, and for the country to enjoy prosperity. We want southern Lebanon to become an attractive and prosperous region.”

Turning to domestic politics, he warned against internal divisions that could, in his view, undermine state consolidation efforts.

He said that the persistence of armed factions outside state control would block both political reform and institutional development, calling instead for a unified national approach.

“If Hezbollah keeps its weapons, there is no hope of developing the political system or implementing reforms,” said Joseph Aoun. “We must end the war, restore the state’s authority over its decisions, and secure Israel’s withdrawal.”

Gemayel stressed that the current phase requires national unity across political and sectarian lines.

“This battle requires the unity of all Lebanese—Muslims and Christians alike,” he said. “Once that is achieved, we can address all outstanding issues, hold a conference for truth and reconciliation, and implement the provisions of the Taif Agreement that remain outstanding.”

He warned against what he described as dispersing political energy through parallel debates that could fracture emerging consensus around state legitimacy.

“Dispersing our efforts and opening debates that fracture the broad national front now standing behind state legitimacy and the restoration of sovereign decision-making would be a mistake,” he said.

“We must unite to reclaim our decision-making authority, restore our sovereignty, liberate our country, and stand behind President Aoun and Prime Minister Salam,” he added, calling the moment “a historic opportunity” that should be seized to rebuild trust in the state and encourage young Lebanese to remain in or return to the country.

Asked whether the Washington framework should be submitted to parliament, Gemayel said its provisions fall within the existing constitutional and legal framework and therefore do not require legislative approval.

“The agreement deals with Israel’s withdrawal and Lebanon’s restoration of its sovereignty, independence and freedom,” he said. “These objectives are already enshrined in the constitution and Lebanese law.”

He added that parliamentary scrutiny would only be necessary if the agreement altered core sovereign parameters such as borders or a peace treaty.

“Had the agreement involved changing borders, concluding a peace treaty, or any matter requiring parliamentary approval, then it absolutely should be submitted to Parliament,” he said. “But what this agreement provides for is simply the implementation of the constitution and the law.”

On implementation, Gemayel acknowledged that resistance to the agreement was likely but insisted that it must be pursued regardless.

He warned that opponents of the framework were effectively seeking to maintain the current balance of power and Lebanon’s continued exposure to conflict.

“All those criticizing the agreement want Israel to remain in order to justify the continued existence of weapons outside state control, maintain dominance over Lebanon, and preserve Iran’s military foothold on Lebanese territory,” he said.

He added that this trajectory would leave Lebanon trapped in a cycle of instability.

“Those attacking the agreement want Lebanon to remain a battlefield, a missile platform, and an Iranian military base to be used whenever Tehran sees fit,” he said.

“After 50 years of tragedy, we Lebanese deserve to live in a real country that we truly belong to,” he said. “Today, we need to love one another and love our country.”

Separately, Gemayel said he was due to meet Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani later in the day, adding that he had already been in contact with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa and received what he described as positive signals.

“I have already been in contact with President Ahmed al-Sharaa and heard positive intentions from him, and today we will see whether those intentions are genuine,” he said. “We have long hoped for a healthy relationship with Syria based on mutual respect and without interference in each other’s political affairs, and we remain hopeful.”