The debate over a standardized account of Lebanon's recent history has been going on for more than two decades, yet this discourse remains one of the most contentious and divisive issues in the country. This week, Lebanese security forces clashed with students affiliated with the Kataeb and the National Liberal Party after demonstrators rallied against a new curriculum proposal on Lebanese history lessons. This clash comes on the heels of the Lebanese government's plans to publish a national history text accompanied by a curriculum that discusses Lebanon's "resistance" against Israel, namely, Hezbollah's role in Lebanon.

Opponents of the new book are more frustrated with omissions from the book rather then its current content. The first omission neglects the role of the Kataeb and National Liberal Party in resisting Palestinian forces as well as the Syrian troops in Lebanon during the 1975-1990 civil war. Critics saw this as a way to downplay the unbalanced Syrian-Lebanese relationship.

The second frustration is born out of the omission of the term "Cedar Revolution" when referring to the 2005 protests. Instead, the book refers to the million person gathering that gave birth to the March 14 coalition as a "wave of protests", which, according to Culture Minister Gaby Layyoun, was labeled the "Cedar Revolution" by US Assistant Secretary for Near East Affairs Jeffery Feltmen and as a result may "create problems between people." The minister claimed this creates internal tensions but did not offer the choice to use "Independence Intifada" instead, which is a less divisive term.

March 14 leaders criticized this move, with Metn MP Sami Gemayal warning that, if adopted in its current form, many schools would simply boycott the curriculum by calling for "educational disobedience." Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt questioned the intentions of the committee and asked, "Does disagreement in politics erase historical facts?"

By presenting the debate on the role of Hezbollah against Israel as facts and diminishing the importance of March 14, 2005 in Lebanese history, the new curriculum has aggravated sectarian tensions. Despite any positive intentions of the book's authors, the unfortunate reality is that there is no unifying history or collective memory for modern Lebanon. The Lebanese have different versions of the 1975 civil war and of those conflicts preceding it, and the motto "no winner, no loser" further ingrains different beliefs among each community. Agreeing on a national account of the civil war is the first step towards resolving the issue of Lebanon's history. It is critical for Lebanon to develop a unified curriculum program that takes into account the multiple narratives at play, even when they are unpleasant to certain communities. Without an historial account that resonates with all citizens, reconciliation will remain out of reach, and Lebanese society will remain divided.