Rewriting Lebanon’s history remains complicated

Writing Lebanon's history should not only be a political issue but also a process of advocating ethical and human values.

It should be the reflection of the Lebanese status on an international level. It should help the Lebanese people understand its present and build a better future.

Recalling the history students learnt in school before the latest change in curriculum, one cannot but notice scandalous gaps, lack of accuracy and absence of analysis.

The post-Lebanese independence era, for instance, was always missing. Major yet not controversial events such as the resignation of the first Lebanese president, Bechara al-Khoury, the 1958 civil war, the Fouad Shehab era and the growth of Palestinian influence in the country were simply not there.

Pathetic and intentional censorship of this important part of Lebanese history was done in order to minimize the chances of any debate about it.

What was more dangerous of this censorship was the vacuum it created in the minds of young pupils thus leaving a wide margin for the different sectarian versions of Lebanese history to fill in gaps.

The end result was that each school started teaching history from the perspective of the sect or the group that controlled it or dominated its geographic area.

Today, every community teaches its own version of Lebanese history. Such versions are so distorted that they are sufficient to ignite a new civil war.

The absence of a "moderate version" employing proper historic methodology is seriously troublesome and problematic.

What is even more problematic than the above-mentioned gaps is proper analysis that should be coupled with the frequently narrated stories about Lebanese past events.

Several historic analyses tend to drop citing the proper reasons behind the eruption of a 15-year civil war between tribal leaders and emerging warlords.

Analyses also tend to forget highlights the problems that occurred after local militias called for the interventions of foreign and neighboring powers as a means of mustering external support to win internal fights. After the conclusion of civil war, not much of the above changed.

Calling for the support of the Walis of Damascus and Acre or alternatively fighting these two Walis are images that were regenerated later in Lebanese history.

Political assassinations and set ups as a means of settlement of political scores are still quite common. Short-lived treaties, pacts and alliances among local leaders are also common today.

Examine these similarities. Is not the war in the Chouf during the civil war similar to the two Maronite-Druze war of the 19th century? Is not the assassination of Bashir Jumblatt by Bashir II al-Shehabi somehow similar to the assassination of Zghorta MP Tony Frangie by the Lebanese Forces?

Are not the three means used by Fakhreddine II to rule over this area namely money, force and marriage links still a recurrent practice among today's political class?

Are not the guns imported by Fakhreddine II from Toscana similar to imports of weapons during the 1980s by former President Amin Gemayel?

It seems the Lebanese are stuck in a vicious circle. Their history has been repeating itself for the past few centuries.

While no one seems able to stop the repetition of history in Lebanon, no literature has been recorded about this cycle. Writing the history of Lebanon should include an analysis so that coming generation would learn from past mistakes and would eventually avoid them.

History books should provide politicians with some judgment. History should commend past personalities with honorable contributions and condemn others who deserve to be forgotten.

In that respect, while condemning the bloodiness of modern dictators such as deposed Iraq president Saddam Hussein or Cambodia's dictator Pol Pot, the Lebanese should look a bit back at their history.

Was not politics in Mount Lebanon all about inviting people over to dinner and poisoning them? Was not torturing opponents, taking out their eyes and castrating them to prevent them from having an offspring a common practice in Lebanese history?

Even worse. These events are being taught in history books without giving any assessment about their morality. They are even sometimes regarded as acts of patriotism when it comes to glorified medieval leaders such as Fakhreddine II or Bechir II who committed such brutality without any accountability neither then nor in today's history books.

In history books, one would not find any explanations for the Druze-Maronite 1840 and 1860 wars except for a hunting clash in 1840 and a kids' fight over a ball game in 1860. Is it conceivable that such two silly events were the reasons behind the worst bloodshed in Lebanese history.

Historical fallacies are numerous not only in Mount Lebanon's history but also in modern Lebanese history of the twentieth century. For instance, why were those hanged on May 6, 1918 called martyrs? Did anyone notice that the then-ruling Turks found the "martyrs'" names in the registeries of European embassies that they invaded? Were the "martyrs" actual patriots or rather collaborators who got in touch with the British and the French in order to oust the Turkish rule?

Another non credible story is that of independence when presumably the Christian Phalange Party joined efforts with the Muslim Najjadeh Party. This version is often repeated in history books in order to stress the fact that country is composed of religious communities. Whenever these communities unite, they decide their fate.

Another chapter from the same version of the independence story is related to the fort of Rashayya.

When visiting the fort, one would be struck by a plate to the right of the entrance in commemoration of 200 warriors from the neighborhood who died in 1925 while trying to take over the fort from the French troops.

The warriors belonged to the revolt of the Syrian-Druze leaders Sultan Pasha al-Atrach against the French mandate.

History books tend to stress the importance of the imprisonment of the Lebanese in 1943 on the eve of independence as a heroic act.

Now is a few-days imprisonment of some government officials in 1943 more important for the country's independence than the death of 200 people who were fighting the French as early as 1925?

Should not those warriors be depicted as freedom fighters who sacrificed their lives for the independence of the country?

History is indeed written by the victorious, but facing that horrible fact history writers should always take care not to insult the intelligence of readers. Lebanese history ought to be rewritten.