Listen to the article

The primary issue confronting Lebanon is not rooted in its religious diversity, as it serves as an exceptional source of enrichment. It is not solely about geography or history, as historical experiences have repeatedly shown over the years. The true issue lies elsewhere and bears a strong resemblance to the complexities inherent in marital relationships.

When a couple reaches the point of formal divorce, it is akin to the common Arabic saying which literally translates to “It is not a pomegranate, but full hearts about to burst” or, in other words, problems accumulate within the hearts of each individual, rendering the restoration of what once was impossible. This is primarily because true reconciliation has not taken place, leaving numerous unresolved issues lingering. This analogy holds true in Lebanon’s national contexts, exhibiting striking resemblances with conjugal life, particularly regarding unresolved matters.

The crux of the issue lies in one of the rare victories for Christians in the recent history of the Republic, when they managed, with French support, to obtain the borders of Greater Lebanon in exchange for the Muslims’ adherence to the idea of pan-Arab unity at that time. Nonetheless, genuine reconciliation on the concept of a unified State has remained elusive for both Christians and Muslims since that time. This reconciliation may not have truly materialized until 2005, following the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri and the withdrawal of the Syrian army from Lebanon.

It took 85 years to achieve historic reconciliation in the form of the State. However, what about the other pressing issues that require critical reevaluation and conscientious and historical reflection for resolution? Unfortunately, these matters remain unresolved, with all the factors still weighing heavily on the hearts and intentions of the people.

In the aftermath of the 1958 war, there was a notable absence of a critical reevaluation, and the two sides failed to reach a consensus on the reality of identity, the perennity of the Lebanese State, and the role of Muslims in governance. Feeling injustice, Muslims took to the streets and initiated a revolution against the main Christian leader, Camille Chamoun.

In the aftermath of the 1975 crisis and the outbreak of war, coupled with efforts to isolate the Kataeb party, a comprehensive historical reevaluation of the Palestinian matter in Lebanon was not conducted.

Even now, consensus has yet to be reached on the nomenclature of the war and whether it should be defined as a civil war or not.

There is still no unanimous agreement on whether Palestinian weaponry was the direct reason for Lebanon’s entry into the war, and whether the Cairo Agreement was the factor that led to the armed conflict escalating to such an extent.

There has been no agreement reached regarding whether the route to Jerusalem was originally intended to pass through Jounieh and whether Christian armament was employed as a means of self-defense or for the liquidation of the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

There is a dearth of a definitive consensus regarding whether the entry of the Syrian army into Lebanon was initiated by Christians and opposed by Muslims before circumstances changed or if it was imposed on Lebanon by other Arab states, thereby relegating Lebanese reality to Syria.

There exists a persistent debate regarding whether it was permissible for Christians to seek aid from Israel while East Beirut was being emptied of its ammunition during the Hundred-Day War, or whether any engagement with Israel should be deemed as collaboration, irrespective of the circumstances.

There is still no consensus regarding whether Bashir Gemayel should be celebrated as an icon, as many Christians perceive him, or labeled as a traitorous collaborator, as his opponents, whether Christian or Muslim, classify him. 

This debate also extended to the narrative suggesting that he arrived at Baabda Palace aboard an Israeli tank.

Similarly, there is still no unanimity regarding whether the May 17 Agreement should have been signed or if its rejection on the streets was a necessary course of action.

It is noteworthy that the accomplishments achieved by Lebanon on May 17 were more significant than the recent border demarcation agreement.

The issue of a definitive designation for individuals who have fled across the southern borders and the question of whether they are entitled to return to Lebanon or should be deemed as traitorous collaborators who have engaged with the enemy remain issues that are still devoid of consensus.

It is not clear whether the Tripartite Agreement served to protect Christians and bring about an end to the war, or if it was a method to tighten the grip on the presidency and undermine legitimacy in Christian areas.

We are still lacking unanimous agreement on whether the War of Liberation (Tahrir) was directed against all world armies and whether the War of Elimination (or Attrition) should have been initiated with the Lebanese Forces, to disarm the militias.

Similarly, we have yet to reach a consensus regarding whether the Taif Agreement was a crucial requirement for Christians, or if it was a deliberate attempt to strip them of their power and influence within the authority.

Furthermore, it remains uncertain whether reports can uncover those accountable for “selling” the cause.

There is still a lack of consensus regarding whether October 13 symbolized heroism and struggle or an escape from Baabda Palace without informing the soldiers of a cessation of hostilities.

It is unclear whether the 1994 Naturalization Decree was a conspiracy by the Christian signatories or an attempt to target the formula by the Muslim signatories.

There is still no consensus regarding the withdrawal of the Israeli army, whether it occurred through the force of al moumanaa (resistance) or the implementation of international resolutions, or if the Doha Agreement was influenced by armed force, the legitimacy of demographic change, or Hezbollah’s involvement in governments after 2005.

How many points of disagreement have failed to reach consensus over the years? 

And above all, at every juncture, tensions, divisions, and crises resurface.

Shouldn’t we consider a historical review before envisioning the future?