Videos featuring coexistence among the Lebanese people are nice. They show the Lebanese flag among a group of young men and women with various party, religious and ideological affiliations, laughing together and having conversations... These videos remind us somehow of what our grandmothers tell us about their best friends from other religious communities and parties: “We chose to overcome the differences between us.”
It is normal for readers of the first paragraph to feel it is strange, and it is even more normal to describe the introduction with lines that are out of touch with reality. It is indeed so, ridiculous and far from reality, just like the videos that have attempted to convince us that Lebanon is a country of coexistence and “love” where the differences between its various components are bridged.
Far from generalization and the principle of ugly universality, successive events confirm almost daily the magnitude of divisions among the Lebanese people and the subsequent rise of hate speech. Social media platforms, specifically “X” (formerly Twitter), represent a microcosm of reality today, as no discussion is devoid of discrimination, stereotyping, bullying, and other forms of hatred.
Definition of “hate”... and the growing phenomenon
According to the European Court of Human Rights, hate speech includes “all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance, including: intolerance expressed by aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism, discrimination and hostility against minorities, migrants and people of immigrant origin.”
“The landmarks that witnessed the rise of hate speech among the Lebanese people are the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, the rift between March 8 and March 14, the May 7 events, and Hezbollah’s intervention in the Syrian war,” says Makram Rabah, professor of history at the American University of Beirut (AUB). Rabah attributes the greatest responsibility to the political system that is based on sectarianism and that justifies hate speech and division, as well as Lebanese parties that have created a climate of division.
Important events have recently divided the Lebanese in a “deadly” way, as described in a study conducted by the Samir Kassir Foundation’s SKeyes Center for Media and Cultural Freedom. One such event is the incitement against Syrian refugees and members of the LGBT community, in addition to the growing misogynistic discourse which has been translated into 13 femicide cases in Lebanon since the beginning of 2023, according to the Kafa Association. An important event that divided the Lebanese people was the fate of the investigation into the August 4th port explosion, and the “mini-civil war” that erupted at the Tayouneh Roundabout in the fourth quarter of 2021.
It is remarkable that hate campaigns go beyond the national level and threaten local communities. This was evident in the events that occurred in Mashghara, West Bekaa, last April. At that time, a dispute between the Sharaf and Ammar families stirred up the worst forms of hatred in the town, accompanied by the threat of using more violence and intimidation. It should be noted that each area in Lebanon has its own “sensitivities,” in addition to playing on this issue during crises.
Journalist and trainer in media and information literacy and hate speech, Rouba Abo Ammo, believes that hate speech in Lebanon is increasing significantly for the following reasons: the interests of media institutions, the divisions among the Lebanese people, the fear of the other that feeds on media content, the lack of the culture of listening to other opinions, the lack of thought-based as opposed to instinct-based discussions, impunity and the lack of laws, in addition to diverting public attention from major issues.
The media and incitement to hatred
The Lebanese audiovisual and print media has played a key role in the rise of hate speech. This media is governed by editorial policies based on divisions, with each having its own funder(s) and different objectives and foundations. The introductions to news bulletins and newspaper headlines provide an example of the reality of such media outlets and their operating mechanisms. These outlets have hosted a large number of debates, and have been accused of inciting and spreading hate speech and provoking divisions among the Lebanese people, especially during sensitive periods such as parliamentary elections.
In addition to the role of the traditional media, the chaotic media market has exacerbated the rise of hate speech in the media, specifically on unregistered platforms which lack a minimum of professional ethics. Similarly, the reality of social media platforms is no less serious, particularly electronic armies which are run by specific groups aiming to attack individuals and groups with various forms of hate speech.
Abo Ammo believes that “the media is politically affiliated and has political, partisan and commercial agendas, which means that the dissemination of this discourse is advantageous to them and their viability, hence they play on instincts.” Consequently, according to the journalist and trainer, the media is a principal partner in disseminating hate speech, noting that public opinion still sees it as an authoritative and credible source.
According to a study entitled “730 Days of Hate” conducted by the Samir Kassir Foundation’s SKeyes Center for Media and Cultural Freedom, it appeared that hate speech against Syrian refugees recorded the highest percentage in television reports against marginalized groups. Of the 12 reports, 6 were against refugees, thus accounting for 50% of the total. On Twitter, women are the most targeted segment of society out of all the identified minorities. On the other hand, Facebook data showed that the LGBT community ranks first in terms of the percentage of problematic comments.
The dilemma of pluralistic societies... and fighting hate speech
Law professor and political activist Ali Murad states that “crises may increase in pluralistic societies such as Lebanese society, specifically when reciprocal injustices are felt towards members of the same group and towards others, while Lebanon’s political reconciliation was not achieved after the civil war (1975-1990).” Murad points out that conflicts among the Lebanese people intersect with accusations easily made against others, such as Syrian and Palestinian refugees, and holding them responsible for many issues.
Despite the bleak picture, many trainings are provided to fight hate speech and raise awareness of its dangers. Many associations and organizations organize training programs, often targeting decision-makers, journalists and media workers, to train them to combat forms of hatred, in addition to developing their critical thinking skills to enable them to distinguish between various media materials and their underlying objectives.
Abo Ammo maintains in this regard that “the professional and responsible work of young men and women will naturally combat forms of hate speech.” She describes the training she provides as “a stimulant for young journalists, especially the enthusiastic and motivated ones, to develop their critical skills.” This teaches them to control their instincts and feelings, and prevents them from falling into the trap of hatred through “mobilizing” headlines among others, as they realize the seriousness and consequences of the issue.
At the same time, Dr. Rabah believes, based on his permanent interaction with the students, that “hate speech is not frequently used by the new generation, especially that we are experiencing the aftermath of the October 17 uprising.” At the same time, he points out that the stakes of the political elite shatter the hope of young people for a new country. Rabah concludes by pointing out that there is no possibility to combat hate speech and discrimination unless plans are made beyond this period.
Despite the violent campaigns in the local community, the discourse denouncing hate speech is increasing in Lebanon, specifically by experts, journalists, and human rights organizations. In contrast, the role of media outlets in combating such discourse is becoming increasingly negative, while many of them deliberately host personalities known for their rigid stances, to create controversy and attract more views. We can only bet on young people working in this field, and the acknowledgment by the Lebanese of the collapse of the coexistence equation... There is a need to work seriously on rebuilding it at a minimum.