On March 3, the Israeli occupation launched a war against Lebanon following a rocket barrage fired by Hezbollah toward the occupied Palestinian territories in response to severe Israeli violations that occurred after the ceasefire of November 2024. The Israeli aggression targeted southern Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley, Beirut’s southern suburbs, and several locations within the capital itself. The attacks reached their peak on April 8, when Israeli aircraft struck Beirut with 100 air raids in less than ten minutes, leaving more than 300 people dead, most of them children.
This bloody campaign forced more than 1.1 million people to flee their homes. According to United Nations figures (April 6), “the number of men, women, and children registered as displaced in Lebanon exceeded 1.1 million people.” More than 137,000 individuals—approximately one-third of whom were children—were staying in nearly 700 collective shelters, most of them schools, while the majority of displaced persons were living with host communities or in informal settlements.
Despite the harsh conditions they endured, these displaced people were subjected to restrictions and hate speech by certain media platforms. Inciting narratives were constructed against them, targeting their sectarian and political affiliations while disregarding their humanitarian circumstances.
The United Nations defines hate speech as “abusive or discriminatory language directed at a group or individuals based on inherent characteristics, which may threaten social peace.” It is also described as a form of verbal, written, or behavioral communication that attacks or uses degrading and discriminatory language on the basis of religion, ethnicity, nationality, color, descent, gender, or other identity-related factors.
Hate speech did not only target displaced people themselves. Israeli strikes in areas presumed to be “safe” were also exploited to fuel hostility against them, particularly attacks targeting hotels and residential apartments in Beirut and elsewhere. These incidents became opportunities for some actors to portray displaced persons as a threat to local communities and to call for their expulsion based on the assumption that anyone targeted by Israel must be a Hezbollah fighter, despite the fact that the 1949 Geneva Conventions provide protections for combatants outside active battlefields.
Hate Speech in Local Media Toward Displaced Persons
The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) defines displacement as “the forced movement of individuals from their regions, environments, and professional activities.” It further notes that displacement is a form of social change often caused by armed conflict.
During the Israeli aggression on Lebanon, hate speech targeted displaced persons through attacks on their sectarian identity and political affiliations. It also extended to those residing in hotels and rented apartments in supposedly safe areas. Even individuals with no party affiliation were not spared from such rhetoric.
This discourse can be divided into three categories according to where displaced people were living: schools, hotels, and rented apartments.
The first category involved generalizing negative stereotypes about an entire sect—namely the Shiite community. Historical and cultural narratives were selectively employed to reinforce negative perceptions. An example is a video report published by the Lebanese newspaper An-Nahar on March 22 titled “From Bint Jbeil to the Southern Suburb: The Story of Shiite Migration to Beirut Through Names and Dates.” The report discussed the historical migration of Shiite families from southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley to Beirut and the subsequent emergence of Beirut’s southern suburbs. Notably, the report largely omitted the primary cause of this migration—the Israeli occupation over previous decades—thereby obscuring a fundamental aspect of this history.
The report also featured a historian who characterized an entire sect using negative stereotypes, suggesting that sadness had always accompanied the Shiite community and that joy had rarely entered their homes. Such statements implied that this community was inherently drawn to death rather than life. The report further linked these stereotypes to the 2024 war, reinforcing negative cultural assumptions. It also alleged that members of the community were subject to political intimidation and therefore “say the opposite of what they truly believe.” According to the historian cited, the statements of displaced Shiites differ by “90%” when spoken on camera because “they speak contrary to their actual beliefs.”
Similarly, the Lebanese online platform Spot Shot published a report on March 3 titled “Lebanese Doors Close in the Faces of Axis Supporters… A Message to the Shiites of the Suburb: Your Accusations of Treason Have Backfired.” The title itself reflects hate speech through the use of derogatory labels such as “Shiites of the Suburb” and “Axis Supporters.” The report featured journalist Tony Boulos, who accused Hezbollah of hiding among civilians and called for the identity of every displaced person to be scrutinized to ensure they were not “infiltrators from Hezbollah who want to destroy themselves and an entire society.” He also stated that “the Shiite environment should clean itself up,” a clearly demeaning expression.
A similar approach appeared on the Huna Lebanon platform, which published an article on March 18 titled “The Cry of One Million Displaced Shiites Worries Speaker Berri.” The article described shelter centers as suffering from hunger, thirst, and cold while highlighting concerns among some communities about hosting displaced persons due to fears that Hezbollah members might be among them, potentially turning those areas into military targets.
The Karantina Camp Controversy
Hate speech reached one of its highest levels when a proposal emerged to establish a displacement center in the Karantina area of eastern Beirut. A coordinated media campaign targeted the proposal, which had been introduced by official Lebanese bodies associated with the Ministry of Social Affairs. The issue quickly took on sectarian dimensions and was accompanied by inflammatory rhetoric that revived memories of Lebanon’s civil war (1975–1990).
On March 21, MTV Lebanon published a report titled “A Shelter Project for the Displaced or the Beginning of a Silent Siege on the Port of Beirut?” The report framed the issue through divisive and fear-inducing language, repeatedly invoking the 2020 Beirut Port explosion. It suggested that many in Beirut wondered whether the shelter project might serve as an indirect means of encircling Beirut through its maritime front.
The report featured MP Nadim Gemayel, who claimed to speak on behalf of Karantina residents and argued that they feared the center could become a security hotspot. Images of the Beirut Port explosion were shown alongside commentary asserting that Beirut’s collective memory had been wounded by Hezbollah and that people had a right to fear the creation of what was described as a logistical security belt that could later be exploited by the party.
Likewise, Nidaa Al-Watan published an article on March 23 titled “The Karantina Camp: A Cover for Tightening the Grip on Beirut.” The author referred to Hezbollah as a “gang” and speculated that the party might seek to compensate for losses in the war by reasserting domestic control. The article attempted to link the proposed shelter center to future security risks and portrayed it as an environment likely to become unstable and prone to tension because of Hezbollah’s presence.
Another article in the same newspaper, published on March 27 under the title “Karantina: Changing Direction Does Not Change Memory,” revisited the Lebanese Civil War from a sectarian perspective. The author referenced the historical presence of Palestinian organizations in the area and recalled violent events from that period, effectively invoking memories of bloodshed and projecting them onto the contemporary displacement issue.
Targeting Hotels
The first Israeli strike on a hotel occurred on March 8 when the Ramada Hotel in Beirut’s Raouche district was attacked. A series of strikes on hotels in Beirut and other regions followed. A common feature of media coverage was the tendency to anticipate investigations and publish the names of those targeted based on statements from the Israeli military, thereby creating confusion and implicitly legitimizing the attacks.
This coverage often shifted responsibility onto hotel guests and contributed to hate speech against both hotel residents and displaced people sheltering there. For example, MTV cited a security source claiming that a hotel room belonged to individuals affiliated with Hezbollah and that members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard had been present during the strike.
In a live report from outside the hotel on March 9, an LBCI correspondent suggested what she described as a “security-oriented and fundamental solution” for hotel owners: photographing every guest’s identification card and issuing QR-code wristbands that would serve as room keys. Such proposals effectively treated hotel guests—particularly displaced persons—as suspects and subjected them to additional scrutiny and restrictions. At the same time, little attention was paid to condemning the Israeli attacks themselves or distinguishing between civilians and combatants protected under international law outside active battlefields.
Conclusion
Hate speech in Lebanon reached alarming levels during the Israeli aggression, particularly within television and online media. It targeted a specific social group through negative stereotyping and the construction of misleading narratives that fueled tension and encouraged social division. These narratives ignored the difficult humanitarian conditions faced by more than one million displaced Lebanese from southern Lebanon and Beirut’s southern suburbs, many of whom spent extended periods living on roadsides or in precarious conditions.
The absence of legal accountability, coupled with the inaction of relevant authorities such as the Ministry of Information, contributed to the expansion and normalization of such discourse. As a result, an environment conducive to social tension and instability was allowed to develop.
Recommendations
The media outlets discussed above violated Lebanon’s Audiovisual Media Law (Law 382/94), which prohibits content that incites sectarian tensions, promotes discord, or threatens national unity, especially during times of crisis and war. It is also regrettable that the Lebanese Parliament has yet to approve the new media law intended to regulate social media and electronic media platforms.
Accordingly, the following recommendations are proposed:
Local media outlets should strictly adhere to the Audiovisual Media Law and uphold their national and social responsibilities.
The Ministry of Information should play a more active role in correcting harmful media narratives that threaten civil peace.
Media oversight bodies, particularly the National Audiovisual Council, should be empowered to guide media discourse and safeguard national security.
Media organizations should strengthen internal editorial oversight mechanisms to ensure freedom of opinion while remaining vigilant about the dangers of hate speech, especially in a country characterized by deep political and sectarian divisions.
The Lebanese Parliament should urgently adopt the new media law in order to comprehensively regulate all sectors of the media landscape, including digital and online media.
Back to home page
