The March 14 General Secretariat has held its interim meeting and issued the following statement:

In a time when Lebanon, as in people, government and political forces, makes every possible effort to turn the page on the disastrous war and to overcome the events that have tried to bring us back to it, be it by its surge towards establishing internal reconciliation, by its support for correcting the Lebanese-Syrian relations on the base of the sovereignty of both states or by its strive to turn the page on a painful past with our brothers the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon by giving them their human and social rights in the light of Lebanon’s sovereignty… the march 14 General Secretariat has stopped, with great regret, at the last positions adopted by Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah which took the country back to an atmosphere of tension and unrest. In this regard:

First: the General Secretariat strongly condemns this escalation in the intimidating rhetoric that Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has allowed himself to use in the face of one and a half million Lebanese people that have, since the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and his colleagues on February 14, 2005, held the banner of Truth and Justice. It equally condemns the threat that could only announce the use of violence and of arms once again, in the context of a renewed coup on the government and on the country, as the leaked scenarios show. It also considers that this means that Hezbollah disrespects the Doha Agreement and specifically the two clauses related to the halting of the intimidation campaign and that to the banning of the use of weapons for political aims.

Second: the Secretariat believes that the most serious position taken by the Hezbollah Secretary General is being opposed to the rules of co-existence and that puts the country’s civil peace in grave danger, because it is the very contradiction of the national consensuses that preserve that peace, starting with the Taif Accords and until the International Tribunal.

Third: The Secretariat, confronted with the stories circulating in the media about the scenario where Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun talks to Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah in order to ask Hezbollah to "change the rules of the game" and to call him for an armed intervention in Christian areas, considers this scenario, that has not however been denied by Aoun, as an explicit incitement to violence and sedition, as well as being contrary to the will of the Christians.

Fourth: The Secretariat, in this atmosphere of escalating and threatening, demands the state, in its political authority at all levels and in its security and military forces, to assume its responsibilities in protecting civil peace from the threats whose authors do not hesitate to reveal in their different scenarios. Prior to this, it demands the State to take a position that meets the level of aspiration of the Lebanese state and of its institutions, a strategic political position that would restore the prestige of the law.

Fifth: Furthermore, the Secretariat, which condemns these positions altogether, out of firm belief in Lebanon as an entity and as a state, appeals to the spiritual references, guardians of the entity’s presence, of the survival of the Christian-Muslim partnership, and of internal peace, under state laws, rights and the democratic regime, to raise their voices in the face of the danger posed on Lebanon by these positions, as an entity and as an example of Muslim-Christian co-existence.

Sixth: The Secretariat, in respect of what targets Lebanon at this time, lays these facts in front of the Arab League that has already sponsored the Doha Agreement, the value of which resides in forbidding the use of violence, and calls upon it to make a move, as well as for a joint Arab action that supports the Lebanese state, its sovereignty, its freedoms and its democracy.

Seventh: The Secretariat confirms its desire for stability in the process of a peaceful political democracy, and says to all parties, including Hezbollah, that they have no choice but to return to the state under its requirements, that the projects of hegemony, domination and cancellation are impossible, and that violence does not intimidate a people determined to retain its freedom.