Lebanese positions rejecting the threat of civil war by Hezbollah’s Secretary-General Naeem Qassem have multiplied, including most internal political forces that supported the government’s stance to implement the exclusivity of arms. The head of the Lebanese Forces party, Samir Geagea, considered it a threat to the presidency, the government, and every free Lebanese.

Qassem raised the level of threats in response to the Lebanese government’s decision on the exclusivity of arms, threatening internal tensions for the first time since assuming his position in the party, and held the government responsible for any sedition that might occur. The response quickly came from Prime Minister Nawaf Salam via Asharq Al-Awsat, saying: “This threat or intimidation with civil war, I believe it is forbidden. None of the Lebanese want to return to civil war today.”

After a wave of rejecting responses that began on Friday, Geagea said in a Saturday statement: “Sheikh Naeem Qassem’s speech is rejected by all standards, as it constitutes a direct threat primarily to the Lebanese government, secondly to the parliamentary majority that granted this government confidence, and to all constitutional institutions in Lebanon, foremost the presidency and the government. It is also a direct threat to every free Lebanese.”

Geagea added that if Sheikh Naeem assumes there are no longer free Lebanese, he is very mistaken. If he assumes that by this he imposes his non-existent prestige on these free Lebanese, he is also mistaken repeatedly. He confirmed that at this sensitive moment in Lebanon’s history, they all stand as free Lebanese forming the majority behind constitutional institutions, especially represented by the president and the prime minister, who strive with all their patriotism and strength to restore Lebanon to itself, restore the actual state order, bring Lebanon’s friends back, and bring the international community to its side.

He pointed out that the current phase is a foundational one, and they will spare no effort in supporting constitutional institutions and standing behind and alongside them, and will do everything possible to prevent anyone from sabotaging this attempt again.

On his part, Hadi Abu Al-Hassan, Secretary-General of the Democratic Gathering bloc (Progressive Socialist Party bloc), considered what was issued by Hezbollah’s Secretary-General as reprehensible and rejected. He asked why outdated terms are being invoked in Lebanon, especially after national reconciliation. Why invoke sedition and talk about civil war? War with whom? No one wants civil war, and those seeking it are the Israeli enemy.

Abu Al-Hassan added that this high-level rhetoric invokes old terms, leading them to fall into an ambush prepared by the Israeli enemy. This speech is wrong and rejected. He pointed out that the current stance contradicts the reason for Hezbollah’s presence in the Lebanese government, as all joined the government after electing a president based on a clear oath speech and a ministerial statement approved by all parties, including the National Alliance component, which spoke of implementing the Taif Agreement, ceasefire terms, UNSC Resolution 1701, and exclusivity of arms.

Meanwhile, MP Ibrahim Mneimneh said that what is required from Hezbollah after the ceasefire, oath speech, and ministerial statement is a clear declaration to hand over arms to the state and confine the discussion of details within the government. However, Hezbollah still circumvents commitments in a vicious circle. He pointed out that the most important problem lies in the lack of trust in the state trying to rise, so Hezbollah has no right to impose its crisis on the Lebanese and the government.

Mneimneh said in a radio interview: “Real protection starts from the state and the unity of the Lebanese, not through illegal arms that deepened division, weakened the national position, and gave Israel pretexts for aggression.” He explained that the president gave Hezbollah an eight-month deadline for a clear declaration of commitment to disarmament and confining arms to the state to discuss details in the cabinet.

He stressed the firm rejection of Hezbollah’s threat of civil war and refusal to surrender arms, urging it to rally around the Lebanese army responsible for giving reassurances, not spreading fear among the Lebanese. He confirmed that the constitutional place for political decision-making in Lebanon is the cabinet, not the street or populist speeches, calling on ministers to bear responsibility within the council and not evade it under the pretext that political files exceed their capacity to decide.