Lebanese leader Saad Hariri, like Hamlet, is haunted by the ghost of his murdered father.
Does he seek to bring to justice his father's killers and risk sparking a civil war? Or does he preserve the peace even if it means the assassins go free?
Rafik Hariri had come to power in the wake of the country's 1975-90 civil war, a Lebanese builder who grew rich in Saudi Arabia and returned to lead his country out of the ash heap of conflict.
The billionaire political leader was assassinated, blown to bits by a massive truck bomb that killed several other members of his convoy as it sped along the Beirut waterfront on Valentine's Day, 2005.
Now, five years after undertaking an investigation, a UN tribunal is poised to hand down indictments.
And Saad Hariri, carried to power by the Cedar Revolution that opposed Syria's interference in Lebanon following his father's assassination, must make the decision of his life: to accept or reject these indictments.
For all these years, Mr. Hariri's supporters in the March 14 movement (named for the date in 2005 when they took to the streets chanting "Syria out") have demanded justice. Their slogan on billboards and stickers was: "The truth, for the sake of Lebanon."
But the choice Mr. Hariri must make is not so simple.
Looking out over the ramparts of his Ottoman palace in downtown Beirut, the Prime Minister can see his father's legacy: the buildings and cafés that replaced the detritus of war, and people once again enjoying peaceful life. Such a legacy should be preserved and the reputation of its creator honoured. That's reason enough to aggressively pursue anyone alleged to have killed his father - but it's also a reason for treading warily.
In the first stages of the UN inquiry, Syria, which had had several thousand troops in Lebanon, was accused of the Hariri assassination. Rafik Hariri was, after all, a man Damascus had difficulty ruling.
More recently, under the investigation's third chief prosecutor, Canadian Daniel Bellemare, blame is falling on Hezbollah, the powerful, Iranian-backed Shia political/military movement that fought Israeli occupation from 1982-2000 and again in 2006.
Therein lies the rub: Hezbollah and its allies are part of Mr. Hariri's governing coalition. If it withdraws, the government will cease to function and a dangerous political vacuum could result.
Worse, Hezbollah and its allies could take to the streets in protest as they did in 2007-08, occupying the rebuilt downtown with an 18-month sit-in, and terrorizing several Sunni and Christian neighbourhoods with their gunmen.
What would the organization do if the UN tribunal sought to have Hezbollah leaders arrested and brought to trial in The Hague?
If anyone attempts to serve warrants against Hezbollah, "his hands will be cut [off]" Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader warned last week, and Hezbollah will "defend itself."
The spectre is chilling. "Most Lebanese want to see Hariri's killers brought to justice," says Rami Khouri, editor-at-large of Beirut's Daily Star newspaper, "but not if the price is a return to sectarian fighting. They're afraid of jeopardizing the peace they've waited so long for."
In the city's southern suburb of Bir al-Abed, the man from Hezbollah says he is afraid too, afraid of being wrongly accused.
Hezbollah prides itself on speaking as one, and this senior official in the organization insists that he remain nameless.
Hezbollah had nothing to do with the killing of Rafik Hariri, he says. "Why would we?" he asks. "Our relations with Hariri weren't 'good.' They were excellent."
Several informed observers agree with that assessment. Ellen Khouri, for example, is a Christian resident of Beirut who translated into English a collection of Hassan Nasrallah's speeches and interviews. Asked if anything in the words of the Hezbollah leader suggested a motive for murdering Mr. Hariri, she replied: "On the contrary. Nasrallah's words in the year or so before Hariri's killing show he had become quite fond and respectful of the man."
"Think about it," the Hezbollah man added: "The last thing we would want to happen would be for Shia to be accused of killing the Sunni leader of the country."
That may be, but is it more far-fetched than his own theory: "Who had the most to gain from his death?" he asked. "Israel."
Look at the results, he says: Syria felt compelled to leave the country, a pro-Western government was elected, and now Hezbollah is being blamed.
"Unfortunately," he said, "this is not an international tribunal. It's a Western tribunal, a Canadian tribunal, a pro-Israel tribunal."
"It is unacceptable," he said, for the tribunal to issue indictments against Hezbollah people. Period.
Besides "cutting off hands," what exactly will Hezbollah do if indictments do come down as expected and accuse Hezbollah people of the crime?
Leaning forward across the coffee table to be certain he was heard, he said: "Use your imagination."
It's a 10-minute drive from the burkas of Bir al-Abed to the tight jeans of downtown Beirut, where Hezbollah staged its 2008 sit-in.
This is where "Iran's first victory" came, said a person close to the March 14 group, referring to the government's capitulation to Hezbollah that ended the sit-in. "Six months from now, I worry Hezbollah will march here again, and Iran will be claiming another victory."
Hoping to head off that possibility, Saad Hariri went to Iran this week for a three-day series of meetings, part of a dizzying display of diplomacy that saw leaders of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Syria flying from capital to capital throughout the region, all seeking a formula to head off potential conflict in Lebanon.
In Tehran, Mr. Hariri was told by the country's Supreme Leader he should "consolidate relations" with Hezbollah.
While there, Mr. Hariri was quoted in Wikileaks as having said the United States should "go all the way if necessary" to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Following that embarrassing revelation, he declared that Lebanon "will never, ever consider itself as part of an international system that aims at pressurizing Iran."
What must it have been like for the Lebanese leader, cozying up to the people he probably believes, were behind his father's demise? Did he, like Hamlet, say to himself: "Break, my heart, for I must hold my tongue?"
Is his visit an indication he will choose not to act on any indictments of Iran's protégé, Hezbollah?
Some Lebanese, such as May Chidiac, worry it might be.
Ms. Chidiac, the former news anchor on LBC television and an outspoken critic of Syria, lost an arm and a leg in a car-bomb assassination attempt that followed the Hariri killing.
She urges Mr. Hariri not to waver from his principles: "You mustn't be frightened into stopping the search for justice," she said.
"This is about more than just Hariri's father."
Saad Hariri's options
A) Act on the indictments against Hezbollah and pro-Syrian factions:
Likely scenarios:
- Hezbollah and allies walk out of government
- Political vacuum created
- Protest marches and civil disobedience from both sides
Worst-case scenarios:
- Escalation to factional bombings and assassinations
- Syria reasserting control over Lebanon to "restore peace" and intensified Israeli military involvement.
B) Disassociates himself from the Tribunal's indictments
Likely scenarios:
- Denouncing a sellout to Iran, hawkish members of his coalition, the March 14 movement, will splinter.
- Lose support of his Western allies
- Trigger sanctions on Lebanon for refusing to adhere to UN demands;
- Lose his own leadership
Worst-case scenario:
- Christian militias would re-arm and launch attacks on Hezbollah interests, leading to retaliation and potentially Israeli and Syrian involvement
C) He does nothing
Likely scenarios:
- No one will be satisfied
- Immobilized government activity leads to a political vacuum
Worst-case scenarios:
- All of the above