I grew up in an environment where, despite the remoteness, the war in Lebanon appeared to be a constant preoccupation of my family, relatives and other members of our community. Accordingly, these experiences as a child came to define me as an adult. Over the years, I set forth on my journey of discovering Lebanon; politically, culturally, historically.

I have since visited Lebanon on four occasions, most recently in March-April 2005, when I experienced firsthand the significant political and social developments which enveloped the country. I was especially encouraged when I received a warm welcome at the tent of the Progressive Socialist Party in Martyrs Square. We freely conversed about the divisions of the past and the future of Lebanon. At that moment, my hope in Lebanon, which had been shattered sporadically over the years, was renewed.

Lebanon is a unique mosaic of distinct socio-religious entities, grouped together by fate and history. Since 1943, Lebanese politicians have constantly paid lip-service to the ideal of national co-existence, but in reality, they have rigidly adhered to their own firmly entrenched feudal principles, a persisting vestige of 400 years of Ottoman occupation. Loyalty to clan, town, and sect have always seemed to supersede loyalty to the Lebanese State and its institutions.

During the war, movements often exploited the ideals of justice and patriotism to further their own political ambitions, which were often shaped by their personal interests and the interests of their sect or clan. Various causes and entities were conveniently employed as a smokescreen by leaders to hide their true endeavors, which differed significantly from their rhetoric and so-called principles. Unfortunately for Lebanon, true dialogue between its people has yet to occur. In one way or another, all sides are responsible for the war of 1975-1990 and its depressing aftermath.

Even today, war-era leaders often vindicate their stances during the war and often employ the same rhetoric which was prevalent during the war years. Sincere and lasting national reconciliation will not occur until all sides sincerely concede that the entire war was a horrible historic mistake brought about by the intrinsic self-centeredness of the Lebanese political class and their failure to acknowledge their historic blunders. These leaders should follow the lead of the late Sheikh Mohammad Mehdi Shamseddine, who in the fall of 1982, courageously stated "We are all guilty one way or another of having created the atmosphere that maintained the crisis whose culmination was the Israeli invasion." Before Lebanese embark on the path of dialogue, they must engage in a process of deep soul-searching.

Lebanon's divisive woe lies in its sensitive socio-political equilibrium. History has clearly demonstrated that various sects have, in one way or another, relied on a foreign hand in their pursuit to overcome the obstacles imposed by this equilibrium. There is no episode of civil unrest Lebanese history that has ever been a purely local affair. In 1840-1860, there were Britain, France and the Ottoman Empire. In 1958, there were Egypt, Syria and the United States. In 1975-1990, there were the Palestinians, Syria, Israel, the United States, Iran and many others to a lesser degree. After each episode of unrest, there is a familiar theme of "reconciliation" and remorse for past events. After each episode, the participants find it convenient to unburden themselves by passionately blaming foreign powers for their calamities, with reference to the conspiracy of creating "fitna" between the "united" Lebanese.

In reality, Lebanon is a ruthless jungle where no foreign power can gain a foothold with some kind of fifth column. Accordingly, the Lebanese alone are responsible for their woes. Foreign players were simply pursuing their own interests, exploiting the fragility of the Lebanese state which emanates from the prevailing cancer of sectarianism and feudalism. And finally there is a familiar theme experienced by all Lebanese; abandonment. Since foreign intervention is premised on foreign interests, Lebanese have often found themselves abandoned or turned against at crucial moments.

In 1976, the Baathist regime in Syria, while presenting itself as the beacon of Arab nationalism, had no qualms about crushing the Palestinians and their Lebanese allies, ostensibly to aid the besieged Maronites; who would later be described by the Syrians as "isolationists" and "Israeli collaborators". This decision was made not in the interests of Lebanon, but in the interests of Syria. In 1983, Israel had no qualms about abandoning the Lebanese Christians of the Shouf region to face a vicious onslaught by their enemies. Again, the decision was made not in the interests of Lebanon, but Israel.

When Lebanese realize that foreign powers are simply using them as pawns on their chessboards to serve their own interest at Lebanon's expense, there will be hope for Lebanon. Today, in the face of UN Resolution 1559, Lebanese are again employing the familiar theme of national dialogue to resolve their differences; an encouraging sign to outsiders. Unfortunately, Lebanese minds are still plagued with an outlook defined by the years of civil strife. National dialogue will not occur while Hezbollah deputies behave in a polarizing manner, which was clearly demonstrated by their refusal to vote on the amnesty law for the release of Lebanese Forces commander Samir Geagea, who has been universally acknowledged as a victim of Syrian-Lebanese security regime.

I believe that this was major error which seriously undermined the brief hope which prevailed when Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah referred to the famous "10,452 square kilometers" tenet of Bashir Gemayel; an error which highlighted the inherent contradictions associated with the movement's calls for dialogue. The events in parliament on 18 July 2005 reinforce the ever-present Lebanese Christian belief that Hezbollah will always view them as an Israeli division behind enemy lines. True national dialogue will not occur as long as such polarizing and divisive events occur.

In pursuing national dialogue, which they say is their stated goal, I urge the leadership of Hezbollah to draw on the wisdom, intelligence and moderation of Ali Bin Abi Taleb, the spiritual father of Shiite Islam. As he wisely said "He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare, and he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere." They will have to show that they are sincerely concerned about the future of Lebanon, and are not merely tools of Syrian-Iranian foreign policy. Hopefully, the Lebanese can resolve their problems on their own this time. If not, the constantly trumpeted notion of "national coexistence" will prove to be nothing but a farce.

Disclaimer: Ya Libnan Volunteer authors assume full responsibility for the content of their articles. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Ya Libnan or affiliated parties.