Lebanon is witnessing something unprecedented: a senior official at the central bank launching a two-front war of accountability. On one front, he is demanding the state repay the funds it borrowed — and never returned — to the central bank. On the other, he is aligning with international legal proceedings targeting individuals who enriched themselves through networks of banks, shell companies, and offshore havens.
In a rational political environment, this would trigger celebration. It would be hailed as a long-overdue reckoning, finally an attempt to claw back stolen public money, finally an official refusing to normalize impunity.
Instead, we are treated to a spectacle that borders on absurdity.
War One: Holding the State Accountable
The governor is pressing the government to recognize its liabilities and to repay what it borrowed from the central bank. This alone is political dynamite: it challenges the narrative that the crisis was solely a banking collapse rather than a fiscal one. It forces the government to look in the mirror and admit what years of creative accounting and denial have avoided.
But what has been the response? Not public support. Not media applause. Instead, attacks from sectors of the political left claiming the state “cannot pay.” Think about the irony: borrowers “not having money” is precisely why financial markets exist. Bonds, repayment schedules, restructuring — these are standard tools worldwide. Yet rather than the Lebanesestate issuing instruments to return what it owes to the people, the burden was placed on the victims — citizens are about to be issued with long-term bonds to fill the hole created by the same state that emptied it. Plus since when was “I’m broke” become a moral defense? Borrowers never have the money while borrowing — that’s the point.
“The government cannot pay! It has no money!” is a bit like saying: “Of course the bank robber cannot return the stolen cash — he already spent it!”
The hypocrisy is astonishing: the Nawaf cabinet demands the moral high ground while refusing the basic principle of accountability it expects of every other debtor.
War Two: Holding Individuals Accountable
If the first battlefield unsettled the political class, the second petrified the economic elite. The governor did not initiate the legal cases announced last week, they existed across several European jurisdictions already brought forward by none other than an NGO called Accountability NOW. He merely joined them, lending institutional legitimacy to proceedings targeting those who used the central bank resources for private gain through intricate offshore schemes.
This is where things got cinematic.
One would imagine the public shouting finally!Yet again, the reaction was inverted. Rather than applauding the attempt to pursue accountability, the media transformed into a shield for the untouchable. Paid influencers, columnists, and talking heads launched a counter-attack drenched in conspiracies and character assassination. The question became not how were public funds looted, but why pursue accountability now?
Suddenly the richest men in the country transformed into innocent victims all funded by their deep pockets.
We are one Netflix documentary away from calling them misunderstood heroes.
Stockholm Syndrome Politics
There is a deeper sickness here, one resembling a mass political Stockholm syndrome. Too many Lebanese have internalized the worldview of the same elites who immiserated them. Media, shaped by political ownership and financial incentives, mirrors that worldview back at society until it becomes common sense.
Lebanon may be the only place where people kidnapped by the political-economic elite end up defending their kidnappers in the media.
While other countries debate ideology, we debate:
“Should we support accountability or protect the oligarchs?”
It is unclear whether this is a political position or a neurological disorder. Doctors are still studying the case.
Accountability is spun into threat. Justice becomes conspiracy. The villains are rebranded as victims. And the public, rather than defending its stolen wealth, is mobilized to defend the very networks that looted it.
Where Did the Moral Compass Go?
The tragedy is not only what was stolen, but how easily the narrative was stolen with it. A double accountability war is being waged, finally, and instead of rallying behind it, the country is burning energy attacking the one figure who dared open both fronts at once.
At what point did Lebanon lose its instinct for distinguishing right from wrong? At what point did media stop being an instrument of scrutiny and become an instrument of protection for the wealthy and connected? And what does it say about a society when accountability itself is treated as a threat?
This is not normal politics. It is a political pathology, and until it is confronted, no reform or investigation will ever be safe from being spun into a crime.