The government defends its performance, saying that it has gotten vital services such as water and electricity back, opened roads and kept the economy functioning. It says that it is nearly done putting in place the trustworthy financial system needed to tap into the international pledges, one that will provide a level of accountability and transparency unprecedented for Lebanon.

“It has only been one month, and a lot has been accomplished,” said the country’s finance minister, Jihad B. Azour. “But people only see what wasn’t done.”

However, when it comes to homes, the government has been slow to respond. Government officials said they would pay $40,000 cash for each destroyed house, but they have not been able to say when. And winter is approaching.

The United Nations resolution that ended the war was designed in part to give Lebanon’s central government its first chance since Israel withdrew in 2000 to extend its authority over the southern part of the country. The peace deal required the government to dispatch the internationally bolstered Lebanese Army there to push out Hezbollah, long the de facto authority in the area. The agreement also offered the central government a chance to sweep in and begin to rebuild, which could have helped it win the peace among a population that it had long ignored.

But while the army is there, it has yet to really engage the international force, not yet allowing it to set up checkpoints or conduct searches. The central government has made no better showing at winning over the people of the south with help.

“It is not good enough to send the army,” said Timur Goksel, a former longtime United Nations spokesman in Lebanon who teaches public administration at the American University in Beirut. “Someone has to fix the roads in the south. Someone has to get the hospitals going. Where is the state?”

The central government’s stumbles started early. Even before the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah ended, it was encouraged to create financial mechanisms to guarantee that international aid would not be squandered; they remain incomplete. Foreign donors who pledged millions at a conference in Stockholm last month have proved so skittish that, instead of funds, they have sent delegations to Beirut to work out exactly how their money will be spent, according to people in the government and others affiliated with nongovernmental agencies and a gulf-area donor country.

Officials in Beirut, determined to get projects moving, have simply encouraged donors to bypass the central government. “We are trying to make ourselves flexible,” said Dr. Azour, the finance minister.

So far, foreign countries have agreed to adopt 99 out of 251 damaged villages, and will likely spend about $640 million on the work, officials said. The United States has agreed to spend $20 million to help repair the Mudarrij Bridge in partnership with the Italians, for example. In total, the United States has pledged $230 million in humanitarian assistance and what are known as early recovery systems.

Lebanon’s people largely rallied together after Hezbollah’s capture of two Israeli soldiers on July 12 prompted Israel to rain bombs on their country, shattering bridges, airports, homes, roads and businesses. But Lebanese unity is as fleeting as the raw emotions aroused by crisis.

Now the scars of this war have exposed, and in some cases deepened, many of the nation’s fault lines. Some Christian villagers in the Shuf Mountains, for example, ask why Shiites in the south will receive compensation for lost homes after just a month, when many of those Christian villagers have received nothing for homes they lost during the civil war of the 1980’s, officials said.

The animosity has only grown between Hezbollah and the coalition that controls the government — named for March 14, the day in 2005 that huge numbers of people demonstrated to call for an end to Syria’s military presence. Their verbal sparring has raised fears of possible civil conflict, in a country miserably familiar with such fighting, and has distracted attention from rebuilding, officials said.

“We have a responsibility to stop political bickering and work on not turning Lebanon into a battleground for external conflicts, and at the same time build a strong, democratic and capable country,” Prime Minister Fouad Siniora said in a televised speech on Friday night. “Our country needs reconstruction of the people’s houses, their lives, their businesses, their sources of income, reconstruction of infrastructure, reconstruction of economy, rebuilding our future potentials.”

That point is not in dispute; the debates are over how to get there. And so the March 14th side accuses the Hezbollah side of carrying water for Syria and Iran. The Hezbollah side accuses the March 14th side of doing the United States’ bidding.

Terms like flattened, crumbled and collapsed barely describe what happened to Aita al Shaab, a Hezbollah stronghold in the south, and neighboring villages. The landscape is a canvas of destruction, 750 homes destroyed, 400 damaged. Communities have been uprooted, families forced to crowd in with relatives, schools shattered. Many residents worried that reconstruction would be uneven, with little planning, and villages forced to take what they can get.

Animosity toward Beirut has hardened.

“The government prefers to get the money directly so they can decide how much money to take for themselves and how much to give to us,” said Afif Bassi, who heads a newly formed local reconstruction committee in the shattered village of Bint Jbail, another Hezbollah stronghold a few miles north of the border, which had some of the most bitter fighting when Israel sent in ground forces. “We drafted a plan for reconstruction that includes electric, roads, water, gardens, sidewalks.”

Fadhl Chalak, the former president of Lebanon’s Council for Development and Reconstruction (which is what war had already turned the Ministry of Planning into, back in 1977), charges that the government has intentionally stalled the reconstruction effort. Mr. Chalak, who was instrumental in completing the reconstruction of Beirut after the civil war, says he believes that the government calculated that Shiites in the south would turn against Hezbollah if reconstruction dragged on — a charge the government dismisses as unworthy of response.

He quit the development council, he said, after Arab countries pledged hundreds of millions of dollars in aid before the war ended and the government was slow to accept it — which the government also denies.

“By delaying funding, they think they can turn Shias against their leaders,” Mr. Chalak said.

The minister of finance said Mr. Chalak quit because he had a personal conflict with the prime minister.

The government has guaranteed that every village will be rebuilt, but the current patchwork of aid has raised concerns about the fate of villages that are not adopted. And if there are few, if any, signs of confidence in the central government, there is growing anxiety about the willingness to turn planning and decision making for individual villages over to foreign governments.

Qatar’s offer of up to $100 million to help rebuild Bint Jbail — where village officials say 700 homes were destroyed, 300 heavily damaged and 1,500 moderately damaged — was based on a plan to distribute money to individual homeowners. The village officials said they were pressing Qatar to adjust the plan.

“What we are asking for from the Qataris is to rebuild the whole village themselves in a modern way which also preserves its historical aspect,” said the mayor, Ali Bazzi. “But they are insisting on paying the people directly. This would be a disaster to the city and to the country too because people will take the $40,000 or $50,000 and leave the country.”

Qatari officials said they have no interest in overseeing the reconstruction itself; they are already overseeing the restoration of 11 damaged schools. In Bint Jbail, they intend to give grants in three stages, with residents having to meet deadlines and show progress to receive each succeeding payment.

“If they do take the first payment and leave, then there is really nothing that we can do, can we?” said Khaled al-Hitmi, an engineer working with the Qatar delegation.

The mayor of Siddiqin, Mr. Azzam, was in a more frustrating position. He said that many people in his village were not supporters of Hezbollah, and so did not receive any of its beneficence. Nor had he received any contact from the government, he said.

But he had met with a delegation from Syria, which promised to rebuild. He said he had not heard back from the Syrians, and so was unsure if they would follow through, or if he would have to wait for the government to get around to his village. Pessimism has taken hold.

“We do not believe people will be compensated,” he said, flatly. “We do not believe their houses will be rebuilt.”