In the political history of the Arab region, there have been many crimes whose aim was not so much to kill a specific person as to kill the truth itself.

Closed regimes and secret organizations understand that controlling the narrative is no less important than controlling weapons. If weapons kill the body, then a fabricated narrative kills awareness, confuses justice, and pushes societies into the depths of chaos.

The assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri in February 2005 was one of those decisive events whose impact went beyond the borders of Lebanon. Only hours after the explosion that shook Beirut, the world’s attention was drawn to a young Palestinian named Ahmed Tawfiq Abu Adas, who appeared in a video recording claiming responsibility for the operation on behalf of an extremist group.

At the time, it seemed as though the matter had been quickly resolved, but questions began to multiply instead of receding, and the recording itself became part of the case rather than an explanation of it.

'Abu Adas' was unemployed and used to frequent a corner in a mosque, where a man named Mohammed began visiting him until they became friends.

At the end of 2004, Mohammed came to Abu Adas’s house and took him along, claiming he had found him a job. Waiting for them were a group of men, a recording camera, and another man carrying a military rifle.

'Abu Adas' was given a paper containing a confession stating that his organization had killed Hariri, and he was told that afterwards he would be released. He complied, but that was the end of his story after the recording. The rest is well known.

What matters here is not only what happened to that young man or how his tragic story ended, but what this incident reveals about a method of covert political work whose principle is “kill and then kill again.” Then comes the attempt to control the narrative.

Throughout history, close-minded organizations have been accustomed to producing alternative accounts and using ordinary or marginalized individuals to conceal the real perpetrator.

Assassination of freedom

In such cases, a human being turns into nothing more than a tool that can be used and then discarded once its role is finished. In this way, a number of Lebanese free figures were assassinated. The same perpetrator, the same claim, and then the same public deception.

It is an ethical, political, and intellectual problem. When political ends become greater than the value of the human being, and when lies become more important than the truth, everything becomes permissible. Lies become a legitimate means, deception becomes an organizational necessity, distortion becomes part of the battle, and killing those who are different becomes a national act.

In such an environment, the question of truth is no longer as important as serving the project whose proponents claim to possess absolute truth. Over time, the organization turns against its own people and begins to consume itself, not only in the sense of displacing them, but also in the sense that anyone who refuses to comply in order to become a “martyr” is eliminated, and anyone who raises a voice in protest meets the same fate, while defeat is reframed as victory.

The most dangerous aspect of armed ideological organizations is that they do not merely confront their opponents; they also impose on their followers a strict system of obedience and discipline. The individual within this system is not asked to think as much as he is asked to execute.

With time, loyalty replaces reason, slogans replace discussion, belonging replaces individual responsibility, and control of the narrative becomes more important than truth, even if the organization moves against its own base.

Environments that do not tolerate criticism

When reflecting on the region’s experience over past decades, one notices that several organizations that raised major slogans about liberation, resistance, or justice have in practice ended up producing closed environments that do not allow criticism or review.

When honest review disappears, correction disappears, and mistakes accumulate until they turn into political and social disasters.

In this context, the spread of certain clips and testimonies attributed to individuals from within those organizations takes on particular importance.

Regardless of the accuracy of each individual account, the overall picture that emerges is that of an organization that demands complete obedience from its members while denying them the same right to knowledge or participation in decision making. Here, the relationship between the organization and its members shifts from one of conviction to one of frustration.

These organizations often speak in the name of human dignity and the defense of the oppressed, yet they undermine human dignity and violate the most basic human rights, foremost among them the right to choose, to protest, or even to ask questions.

Therefore, the problem in Lebanon is not weapons alone, but rather the mentality that manages those weapons and treats human beings as disposable tools.

Lebanon has paid a heavy price as a result of prioritizing loyalties and organizations over the state and its institutions.

The Lebanese experience offers a clear lesson that the state cannot coexist for long with centers of power that operate outside its logic and laws.

When decision making authorities multiply, responsibility is lost. When responsibility is lost, truth becomes the first victim.

Nations are not built on angry slogans or false legendary narratives. They are built on independent institutions, fair justice systems, and freedom to search for the truth.

As for societies that allow human beings to be turned into tools and truth into propaganda material, they open the door to an endless cycle of doubt, fear, and division. Hezbollah calls the displacement of millions and the resulting facilitation of land occupation a victory, and it continues to try to control the narrative despite all the destruction we see around us.

The essence of modern civilization is not the possession of power, but subjecting power to accountability, and not controlling the narrative but confronting the truth.

Any political or ideological project that fails to accept accountability and turns to falsifying reality is ultimately destined to become a burden on the society it claims to defend, and its groups become nothing more than armed gangs.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar.