MP Nadim Gemayel rejected proposals to incorporate Hezbollah’s weapons into a national defense strategy, calling instead for a state-led plan rooted in Lebanese sovereignty and constitutional authority.

Speaking on a podcast aired by local broadcaster Al-Jadeed, Gemayel addressed Lebanon’s upcoming parliamentary elections, describing the vote as a "real benchmark" for measuring his political standing amid speculation that his popularity is in decline.

“Only the people will decide,” he said, adding that the results will demonstrate “who truly deserves to represent the Maronites of Beirut.”

He stressed that his continued political presence stems from direct engagement with constituents and active participation in social life.

“My political relevance is tied to my personal relationship with the people,” he said.

Gemayel distanced himself from his late father, President Bachir Gemayel, who was assassinated in 1982.

“I never ran on Bachir’s name. I never presented myself solely as his son,” he said. “I have my own identity and political ideas. I even disagree with him on some issues."

He noted that while his father’s politics reflected a specific historical moment, he remains committed to Bachir’s core principles: sovereignty, freedom, and state-building.

“These values are still valid today,” he said, adding that the Lebanese are increasingly recognizing their relevance.

“After more than forty years since his assassination, Bachir is finally being acknowledged for what he stood for.”

Justice, however, remains elusive, he said, particularly regarding the case of Habib Chartouni, who was convicted in absentia for carrying out the assassination. Gemayel called on the Lebanese state to take serious steps to apprehend Chartouni and enforce the court’s decision “wherever he may be.”

Gemayel revealed that despite requesting a meeting with President Joseph Aoun at the start of his term, he has yet to be received. While attributing the delay to the president’s schedule, he expressed disappointment.

“I expected more from a president who entered office with such lofty rhetoric. His performance hasn’t lived up to those expectations.”

Still, he voiced hope that Aoun would return to his original reform program, which received applause in Parliament.

“Words mean nothing if they’re not followed by actions,” he said.

On the issue of national sovereignty, Gemayel underscored that only the Lebanese state should have the authority to decide on matters of war and peace, in accordance with the Constitution and the Taif Agreement.

“These decisions must be made solely by the Cabinet,” he said.

He categorically rejected any attempt to integrate Hezbollah’s weapons into a national defense strategy.

“A defense strategy is a sovereign, collective decision made by the state and its institutions. It cannot include illegal arms or armed groups operating outside state control,” he said.

Legitimizing Hezbollah’s arsenal, he warned, would “grant recognition to a militia that has never been accountable to the state and has brought destruction to the country.” He instead proposed a clear alternative strategy: expanding the Lebanese Army to 90,000 troops, securing borders and infrastructure, preventing the smuggling of arms, and reviving Lebanon’s regional and international diplomacy.

He reminded that none of Lebanon’s three top leaders—the president, prime minister, or speaker—have the constitutional authority to decide unilaterally on the proposal put forth by U.S. envoy Thomas Barrack.

“Only the Cabinet, as a unified body, has the constitutional power to set Lebanon’s security and defense policies.”

Gemayel denounced what he called a “theatrical” process of involving Hezbollah, openly or secretly, in discussions about the nation’s future.

“Anyone who wants to negotiate must do it openly. The state cannot be managed behind closed doors or through unofficial representatives fronting for power brokers.”

The MP said there is now near-universal international consensus—from the United States to Russia to the Arab world—opposing the continued presence of non-state arms in Lebanon.

“The overwhelming majority of Lebanese reject these weapons,” he said, citing Hezbollah’s role in government paralysis, political assassinations, and violent episodes like the May 7, 2008 clashes.

“The weapons were used to impose a political reality,” he added. “That’s dangerous and unacceptable.”

He pointed to former Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblat’s decision to hand over his party’s weapons as a model of national responsibility.

“We did the same after the Taif Agreement. None of us kept a militia like Hezbollah has.”

“We handed over our arms 30 years ago. Hezbollah must do the same,” he said. “We’re not asking them to do anything we didn’t already do ourselves.”

He insisted that calls for a just state are simply demands to implement what all Lebanese agreed to: surrendering arms to the state, respecting institutions, and upholding the constitution.

“This has to begin with a clear and explicit political decision, not vague arrangements or informal talks with actors who behave like they’re above the state.”

Gemayel also claimed that Hezbollah is experiencing internal confusion. While some in the party pushed to open a front in support of Gaza, others favored restraint, recognizing the potential burden of deeper involvement.

“That conflict proved extremely costly,” he said. “Now, the same question arises: Do we continue down this path and try to legitimize these weapons again? Or do we admit that they failed to liberate Jerusalem, didn’t protect Gaza, didn’t defend Iran, and certainly didn’t defend the Lebanese people?”

Gemayel noted that a new discourse is emerging within the Shia community, calling for an honest reassessment, not out of defeatism, but out of a moral sense of responsibility.

“The party’s leadership must now make the right decision,” he said.

Turning to the recent bombing of a church in Damascus, Gemayel said the timing suggests that some actors are attempting to ignite sectarian conflict, either between Christians and the newly established Syrian regime or among the Christian community itself, particularly as regional tensions rise, especially along the Iranian front.

On the question of peace with Israel, Gemayel said Lebanon should return to the 1949 Armistice Agreement and work toward building strategic relations with “a new Syria.”

“Lebanon must position itself firmly within the Arab world,” he said. “Becoming a partner in the emerging regional order is Lebanon’s true guarantee.”