Lebanon’s long struggle for a unified history

Lebanon’s relationship with its own history has remained one of the country’s most sensitive and unresolved questions. Despite the importance of historical education in shaping collective memory, national identity, and citizenship, Lebanon continues to rely on a history curriculum that dates back more than half a century.

In an interview with The Beiruter, university professor and member of the Lebanese Association for History (LAH), Dr. Amine Elias, examined the challenges surrounding Lebanon’s history education system, the importance of reforming the existing curriculum, and the principles that should guide the creation of a modern historical framework capable of reflecting Lebanon’s diversity while strengthening national belonging.

The debate over a single history book: Between unity and diversity

According to Dr. Elias, the first misconception surrounding Lebanon’s history education debate is the belief that the country has never possessed a unified historical framework. In reality, Lebanon has had a unified history curriculum since the late 1960s, developed between 1968 and 1971.

However, instead of producing a single state-approved textbook, Lebanon adopted a compromise model. The state established a common curriculum while granting authors and publishing houses the freedom to produce different textbooks based on that framework.

Rather than advocating for a single official textbook imposed by the state, Dr. Elias argues for a more realistic approach: a modern, inclusive, unified, and nationally recognized curriculum that allows different perspectives while ensuring that all Lebanese students share a common historical foundation.

For Dr. Elias, this approach remains the most suitable model for Lebanon’s political and social reality. “I am not among those who support the idea of a single unified history book,” arguing that “given Lebanon’s reality, the more realistic solution is a unified curriculum written from multiple perspectives, so that everyone feels represented in this history.”

Lebanon does not have an ideological political system that seeks to impose one single narrative on everyone.

Therefore, forcing the country to adopt one official history textbook risks marginalizing certain communities and excluding parts of Lebanese society from the national story. A unified curriculum, however, creates a shared educational foundation while allowing historians and educators to approach historical events from multiple angles.

Political obstacles and the failure to reform history education

Despite the existence of a unified curriculum framework, Lebanon has struggled for decades to update its history education system. According to Dr. Elias, after the Taif Agreement, the country failed not only to produce a unified history textbook but even to establish a renewed history curriculum.

One major attempt took place in the late 1990s, during the period of Syrian influence over Lebanese political affairs. While new curricula were introduced for most school subjects in 1999, history remained untouched.
“The period of Syrian tutelage showed little interest in addressing the issue of history in Lebanon.”

Later, when efforts were made to develop a new history curriculum, controversy erupted over historical interpretations. A committee led by Nemer Frayha, then president of the Educational Center for Research and Development (CERD), prepared a new curriculum and proposed textbooks. However, disagreements emerged over the classification of certain historical periods, particularly after the textbooks described the Arab conquest as one of the occupations Lebanon had experienced. The controversy quickly became political, with critics arguing that such a description was unacceptable. As a result, the project was blocked, and Frayha was removed from his position.

Beyond disputes over historical events, Dr. Elias recalls that discussions surrounding curriculum reform were later repeatedly overshadowed by political disagreements over which historical figures should be included in the national narrative. He explained that political representatives sought to ensure that figures associated with their own parties and movements were recognized in the curriculum. Similar disagreements emerged over the concept of “resistance,” with competing political factions arguing that Lebanon’s history should acknowledge the various forms of resistance carried out by different groups throughout the country’s modern history, rather than privileging a single narrative.

For Dr. Elias, this demonstrated how historical debates in Lebanon are often shaped not only by academic considerations but also by political sensitivities, competing memories, and unresolved questions over national identity, with each group attempting to preserve its own narrative.

The issue is not simply about a unified textbook. The deeper problem is that there has been no political agreement over history itself. We reached a point where we were unable to agree even on a curriculum, not just on a textbook.

Why Lebanon urgently needs a new history curriculum

While the debate often focuses on whether Lebanon should have a single history book, Dr. Elias believes the more urgent issue is the need to modernize the curriculum itself.
The current history curriculum, developed nearly 60 years ago, no longer corresponds to contemporary educational standards. “Imagine driving a 60-year-old car today,” he says, comparing the outdated curriculum with technological and scientific developments that have transformed education worldwide. Over the past decades, educational theories, cognitive sciences, and teaching methodologies have evolved significantly. Countries regularly revise their curricula to reflect changing realities, yet Lebanon remains attached to a framework developed during the 1960s.

For Dr. Elias, this situation is no longer acceptable. A modern curriculum, he argues, serves several essential purposes.
First, it restores coherence to the educational system by establishing a common national framework for both public and private schools. Education, Dr. Elias stresses, is an expression of state sovereignty. The latter, he believes, is not limited to borders, security, or military affairs. It also includes the ability of the state to define the educational values and knowledge transmitted to future generations. A school operating in Lebanon, regardless of whether it is founded by foreign communities or organizations, must respect the national curriculum established by the Lebanese state.

Second, history education plays a central role in shaping the type of citizen Lebanon seeks to create. Dr. Elias notes that education should not merely transmit information, but rather develop democratic citizens capable of innovation, independent thought, critical analysis, dialogue, respect for diversity, and participation in global civilization. The objective is to create individuals who understand their rights and responsibilities, appreciate Lebanon’s pluralism, and remain open to interaction with the wider world. The history curriculum, therefore, is not simply about remembering past events. It is about preparing future generations to face future challenges. "Through education, the state is building the citizen it wants to see 30 years from now."

Building the new history curriculum: From memorization to critical thinking

Dr. Elias revealed that he recently participated in the History Committee at the CERD, that worked on developing a new approach to history education, upon which Ministerial Decree No. 3445 was issued on 15 July 2026.
The committee’s central objective was to redefine the purpose of studying history. Rather than treating history as a subject based mainly on memorizing dates, events, and political figures, the new approach focuses on developing competencies required in the 21st century. Students are expected to learn how to analyze, evaluate, create, collaborate, communicate, and think critically. Historical knowledge remains important, but it becomes a tool for developing intellectual abilities rather than an end in itself.

The new curriculum also adopts a thematic approach, moving away from an exclusive focus on political history. While political events remain part of the curriculum, greater attention is given to social history, cultural history, art, heritage, and the experiences of ordinary people.

History is not only the history of political leaders; it is also the history of society and the people who make it.

Another important reform is connecting history to everyday life. Students frequently question the relevance of history, asking why they should study events from the distant past. The new approach seeks to answer this question by demonstrating how historical knowledge helps individuals understand society, analyze current challenges, and develop lifelong learning skills.

The role and responsibility of political leaders

Despite the academic progress made in developing a new curriculum, Dr. Elias stresses that political commitment remains essential. Curriculum reform cannot succeed without political leaders placing national interests above partisan calculations. He calls on ministers, parliamentarians, and officials to consider the future of the children who will inherit Lebanon.

Lebanon’s future, he argues, cannot be built through division, dependency, or loyalty to political figures. It requires citizens equipped with knowledge, critical thinking, and a strong sense of public responsibility.