Kataeb Party leader Samy Gemayel made clear on Friday that the Reconciliation and Truth Conference he has proposed has nothing to do with Hezbollah’s disarmament, stressing that this issue he says is no longer open for discussion.

In an interview with LBCI, Gemayel emphasized that the ongoing presence of non-state weapons violates Lebanon’s Constitution, its laws, and the principle of equality among citizens.

“Reconciliation must address fears and acknowledge our shared history,” Gemayel said. “But it cannot and must not be used as a cover for the continued existence of weapons outside the authority of the State.”

“Truth-telling is not about legitimizing an illegal reality,” he added. “The presence of arms outside State control is a constitutional, legal, and moral violation. Reconciliation should never entertain the idea of preserving them.”

Gemayel expressed cautious optimism about Lebanon’s future, saying the country has emerged from a period of “suffocating tutelage” and is “on the right path.” However, he warned that progress remains fragile as long as some groups believe they can enforce their will through arms.

“As long as anyone thinks they can dominate others with their arsenal, we will never reach common ground,” he said.

He stressed that Lebanon’s national story must reflect all of its communities' experiences. “We have to acknowledge every narrative and then work together to see if we can arrive at a shared one,” he said. “Let’s agree on how to live together and build a State that respects everyone—a place where people are treated with dignity, and where hope for the future is real.”

Telling one’s story, he added, should not come at the expense of others'. “Recognizing each other’s experiences is where rebuilding begins.”

Gemayel lamented that most Lebanese—especially the youth—are unfamiliar with each other’s histories, having grown up in isolated and divided communities.

“Even I’m still learning new things about other people’s stories, and I’m supposed to be informed,” he said.

He blamed the lack of collective truth on both domestic and foreign interference. “The Syrian regime worked for years to prevent reconciliation among the Lebanese,” he said. “Later, Hezbollah and the Iranian regime continued that strategy. But today, 50 years later, with no foreign power stopping us from speaking, we have a real chance to talk—and to think about the future together.”

Justice, he insisted, must go hand in hand with reconciliation. Political assassinations in Lebanon, he said, must not be allowed to go unpunished.

“The 1990 Taif Agreement granted amnesty for wartime actions—but not for political murders,” he said. “Just like in South Africa, accountability must be part of reconciliation.”

He warned that any new chapter in Lebanon’s history must not come at the expense of justice. “Reconciliation does not mean halting judicial proceedings. Those must continue in parallel. If we want to turn the page, we must do so concerning armed groups—but not political assassinations. Those can never be subject to amnesty.”

Gemayel called for a national consensus to end Lebanon’s repeated cycles of conflict. “Every five years we face a new war—sometimes internal, sometimes fueled by internal actors on behalf of outside powers,” he said. “How can we expect people to stay in Lebanon, or invest here, under those conditions?”

He identified two main causes behind the 1975 civil war: the presence of foreign-backed militias and the lack of trust among Lebanese communities.

“We need to fix both. Illegal weapons must be surrendered, and we must build mutual understanding. Full sovereignty must rest with the Lebanese army alone.”

He added: “As long as non-state weapons exist, there will be no resolution. Once arms are handed over and dialogue becomes the only option, we’ll hear a different kind of political discourse.”

Gemayel emphasized that Lebanon’s defense must be a unified effort led exclusively by the State.

“Every inch of Lebanese territory is sacred. Any violation of sovereignty must be met with resistance—but that resistance must come from the State, not from groups carrying out foreign agendas.”

He accused Hezbollah of starting a cross-border war “with foreign weapons, foreign ideology, and foreign funding,” undermining Lebanon’s ability to defend itself effectively.

“We’re far stronger when we stand united behind the State—especially when defending ourselves, not serving outside agendas.”

Gemayel said Hezbollah’s continued possession of weapons provides Israel with the only remaining excuse to delay full withdrawal from southern Lebanon.

“There’s already a ceasefire agreement, and Israel has accepted it, along with U.S. and French guarantees that Lebanon’s borders are sacred. The only pretext Israel has left is the presence of Hezbollah’s arms,” he said. “Let’s take that excuse off the table. Let the world deal with a legitimate State—it’s a thousand times more powerful than any militia when backed by international allies.”

He argued that Lebanon’s best defense lies in building strong State institutions and strategic alliances. “Other small or weak countries have managed to protect themselves by fostering international partnerships. We tried the so-called ‘resistance’ model—its weapons were more powerful than those of our national army, yet Lebanon was devastated. That is not a viable solution,” he said. “The real solution is to build a functioning State, invest in our army, and secure our place in global safety networks.”

Responding to Jaafari Mufti Sheikh Ahmad Qabalan’s recent statement that weapons are a “sacred right,” Gemayel countered: “Weapons are not sacred. Equality among citizens is sacred. No one group should enjoy privileges others do not.”

He added that Hezbollah had already accepted the terms of the ceasefire, including disarmament.

“Speaker Nabih Berri knows our stance. We can’t start a new chapter while weapons remain on the table,” Gemayel said. “I don’t belong at a negotiating table about this issue. It’s not up to political parties to debate weapons—it’s between the State and Hezbollah. My job is to ensure the enforcement of what’s already been agreed: the Constitution, the presidential oath, U.N. Resolution 1559, the Taif Agreement, and U.N. Resolution 1701.”

“Speaker Berri negotiated for Hezbollah and approved the ceasefire. So, did they sign and then change their minds? If so, let them say so. Otherwise, this discussion is over.”

“If Hezbollah is serious about change, then it should engage directly with the State to implement a weapons monopoly—along with fair mechanisms to transition fighters, including how to handle those currently on Hezbollah’s payroll.”

Addressing Berri’s rejection of conditional military aid, Gemayel said, “He has every right to voice his opinion. But donor countries also have the right to attach conditions to their support. If their terms align with our national interest—namely, building a sovereign, independent State with weapons solely in the hands of the army—then why reject them out of spite?”

“For decades, we’ve called for exclusive State control over arms. If foreign donors now echo that demand, we should see it as an opportunity, not an insult.”

He suggested that Lebanon replicate its approach to maritime border negotiations in its dealings with Israel over land borders.

“Maritime negotiations already took place—why not conduct similar talks over the land borders to resolve all outstanding issues and secure lasting stability in southern Lebanon?”

“As long as people fear an imminent war, there will be no investment, no jobs, no future. That’s why the weapons issue is non-negotiable—it’s a matter of national survival.”

When asked whether the future of the Shiite community lies within the State, Gemayel answered firmly: “Absolutely. We will treat them with respect and appreciation. There is no exclusion. Yes, they may have felt marginalized in the past—but it’s our duty to eliminate that sense of alienation.”

He concluded by saying that fear cannot justify clinging to arms outside the State’s authority.