Lebanon was at one time known as a nation that rose above

O children of the future, hear the lament of Roger Ebert, whose words mourn the tragedy of Lebanon, once a land of beauty and unity, now torn asunder by the fires of sectarian hatred. "Lebanon was at one time known as a nation that rose above sectarian hatred; Beirut was known as the Paris of the Middle East," he said. A time once existed when this land, rich in culture and history, shone like a beacon, a place where different peoples could coexist in harmony. But that light was extinguished, blown apart by the winds of senseless religious wars, wars that were financed and exploited by those who sought nothing more than power and wealth. These forces of greed and division tore the soul of a nation asunder, leaving behind a landscape scarred by years of conflict and suffering.

Consider the ancient city-states of Greece, where Athens and Sparta were divided by rivalry and war, their greatness tainted by the greed and ambition of those who sought to control the destiny of their people. Pericles, the great leader of Athens, understood the value of unity and culture, but even his wisdom could not shield his city from the forces of division. Just as Greece fell into disarray, so did Lebanon. In both cases, the pursuit of power and wealth turned people against one another, causing their societies to fracture and their futures to slip into darkness. The wars that followed left deep wounds, ones that would take generations to heal, if they ever healed at all.

Yet Roger Ebert also offers us a question wrapped in theory—"If women had been in charge, would they have been more sensible?" This question, though speculative, carries within it the wisdom of the ancients. Throughout history, when women have held power, there are instances where their leadership brought peace and stability. Consider the reign of Queen Elizabeth I of England, who navigated a country torn by religious conflict and political strife. Through her wisdom, patience, and diplomatic acumen, she led England into an era of prosperity and cultural flourishing, defying the chaos that threatened to consume it. Her leadership stood in stark contrast to the more violent and power-hungry rulers of her time, proving that the sensible leadership of a woman could bring an end to turmoil.

The question, then, is not just about the hypothetical leadership of women, but about the nature of leadership itself. Would women, who have historically been stewards of the hearth, the nurturers of the family, approach the world’s conflicts with a greater sense of compassion and understanding? In the ancient world, Cleopatra of Egypt demonstrated that women’s leadership could balance strategy with empathy, forging alliances that protected her people and preserved the power of her throne. Like Cleopatra, women in politics and leadership roles have often sought solutions that build unity, not division.

Let us, O children, reflect on the fate of Lebanon, a nation once known for its unity, now broken by the greed and ambition of those who sought power at the cost of the people. The question remains—could women, with their different approach to governance, have avoided such a fate? Perhaps the theory is not so far-fetched, for in times of division and strife, the compassion, wisdom, and nurturing qualities often associated with women may offer a path to peace, a path where reason and care replace the chaos of war.