Hate Speech in Times of Armed Conflict: When Words Become Instruments of Mass Killing
By Mazen Shaqoura, Regional Representative of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights – Middle East and North Africa
Experience has taught us, from Rwanda to Myanmar, from Bosnia to Palestine, that wars do not always begin with the barrel of a gun. More often, they are born from speech that sows hatred. This is not merely about emotions or reactions, but rather about a discourse built on denying the "other," stripping them of their right to exist, and turning them into an existential enemy. When this speech is cloaked in fear, sectarianism, and racism, and adorned with false sanctity, it becomes the fuel that ignites conflict, prolongs it, and deepens its tragedies.
In armed conflict, hate speech is not a passing emotional outburst but a calculated strategic tool used to achieve political or military objectives. It mobilizes support, justifies crimes, and legitimizes violations that rank among the most heinous under international law.
The UN Security Council, in its most recent meeting (2 May 2024), discussed the rise of hate speech and disinformation as direct threats to international peace and security. The UN Secretary-General affirmed that 'when incitement to hatred goes unpunished, it leads to physical violence and mass atrocities.' These are not political exaggerations, they are documented facts in humanity's collective memory.
The danger of hate speech lies in its ability to strip the other of their humanity. When a refugee, journalist, or someone of a different sect is portrayed as an existential threat, attacking them is no longer seen as a possibility -it is framed as a legitimate act of self-defense, even as a national or religious duty.
The International Committee of the Red Cross has documented how such rhetoric complicates humanitarian aid delivery, fosters hostile environments for relief workers, and intimidates local communities from cooperating with humanitarian organizations, thus exacerbating the scale of the humanitarian catastrophe.
A recent study published in Critical Arab-American Studies found that armed conflicts are fertile ground for the spread of racist discourse. These settings reshape identity into an extreme binary: "us" versus "them," "good" versus "evil," "humans" versus "monsters."
This phenomenon cannot be addressed without mentioning the role of digital platforms. Today, the machinery of hate no longer needs radio stations, as in Rwanda. A single tweet, a video clip, or an organized hashtag is enough to spread a toxic narrative like a contagious disease, unchecked and unfiltered.
Reports by the UN Human Rights Office show that social media platforms have become breeding grounds for hate speech during conflicts due to weak oversight and algorithms that amplify shocking content. What's even more dangerous is that these algorithms do not distinguish between satire and incitement to murder, or between criticism and hate propaganda.
Under international human rights law, hate speech is addressed most clearly in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines in Article 19 the right to freedom of opinion and expression and guarantees protection from discrimination and incitement to it in Article 7, implicitly setting limits on expression when it incites discrimination or violence. The ICCPR's Article 19 also protects freedom of expression, while allowing necessary restrictions to respect others' rights or maintain public order. Crucially, Article 20(2) explicitly states:
"Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law."
This reflects that international law does not seek to restrict freedom of expression but to balance it with the protection of societies, especially vulnerable groups, from incitement to hatred and violence.
In this context, the Rabat Plan of Action, launched by the UN Human Rights Office in 2012, serves as a key international reference to distinguish legitimate expression from criminally punishable speech. It relies on a precise assessment of a message's severity, intent, context, content, reach, and impact. The Plan established balanced standards that help states develop legal frameworks to effectively combat hate speech without infringing on free expression.
In 2019, the United Nations launched its Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech, urging all UN bodies and Member States to adopt a preventive approach based on strengthening social cohesion, protecting communities from incitement to violence, and addressing the root causes of hate, such as marginalization, discrimination, and injustice.
At the regional level, the UN Human Rights Office's Regional Office for the Middle East and North Africa places high priority on addressing hate speech in its programs. The office has trained hundreds of journalists on human rights-sensitive reporting, organized dialogues with youth, media institutions, and academia on hate speech and misinformation, and supported national and regional initiatives to amplify counter-narratives and promote pluralism and mutual respect, through partnerships with UN agencies, civil society organizations, and educational and media institutions.
In one of my encounters with youth from a conflict-affected region, a 16-year-old boy asked me, 'Do they really see us as animals on the other side?' I paused in silence, at a loss for an immediate response. How could I explain to him that the incitement broadcast around the clock had portrayed him, his family, and friends as threats to be eradicated? How could I convince him that the world sees him as a full human being with rights and dignity, while the media messages reaching him depict him as nothing but a threat to be eliminated?
In this regard, we recall a line from the UN's 1999 report on the Rwandan genocide:
'The genocide in Rwanda began with words, not bullets.'
Words that stripped people of their humanity, paving the way for atrocities.
Peace is not built by silencing guns alone. There is no reconciliation without justice, no justice without accountability, and no accountability without a frank and fundamental reckoning with hate speech. We need effective legal mechanisms to ensure accountability, including for incitement to hatred, regardless of its source, so that those responsible are not left unpunished. We also need serious partnerships with tech companies to impose strict controls on content inciting violence, and to empower local communities to produce alternative narratives that promote values of pluralism and mutual respect.
Additionally, we must develop humanitarian media strategies that emphasize common human values and avoid divisive and polarizing rhetoric. Finally, integrating human rights education into school curricula from an early age is a necessary step to instill principles of cooperation and coexistence, instead of hatred and division. A word that incites today may become a crime tomorrow, not just in the eyes of the law, but in the conscience of humanity as well.
read more
Analysis- Turkey Has 0 Regional Allies... Why?
Analysis: Russia, Turkey... Libya in Return For Syria?
Analysis: Who Will Gain Trump's Peace Plan Fruits?
Analysis: Will Turkey's Erdogan Resort to Snap Election?
Analysis: What Are Turkey's Aspirations in Iraq?
Opinion & Analysis
Analysis: Mercenaries In Libya... Who Should Be Blamed?
Opinion & Analysis
Analysis- How 'Libya Nightmare' Takes Erdogan to Algiers
Opinion & Analysis
Analysis: What Happens After Brexit?
Opinion & Analysis
Analysis: Strategic Significance of Libya's Sirte, Jufra!
News
China Launches Largest Ever Aircraft Carrier
Sports
Former Al Zamalek Player Ibrahim Shika Passes away after Long Battle with Cancer
Lifestyle
Get to Know 2025 Eid Al Adha Prayer Times in Egypt
Business
Fear & Greed Index Plummets to Lowest Level Ever Recorded amid Global Trade War
Arts & Culture
Zahi Hawass: Claims of Columns Beneath the Pyramid of Khafre Are Lies
News
Flights suspended at Port Sudan Airport after Drone Attacks
Videos & Features
Video: Trending Lifestyle TikToker Valeria Márquez Shot Dead during Live Stream
News
Shell Unveils Cost-Cutting, LNG Growth Plan
Technology
50-Year Soviet Spacecraft 'Kosmos 482' Crashes into Indian Ocean
News
3 Killed in Shooting Attack in Thailand
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
See - Sada Elbalad
6 hours ago
- See - Sada Elbalad
Hate Speech in Times of Armed Conflict: When Words Become Instruments of Mass Killing
By Mazen Shaqoura, Regional Representative of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights – Middle East and North Africa Experience has taught us, from Rwanda to Myanmar, from Bosnia to Palestine, that wars do not always begin with the barrel of a gun. More often, they are born from speech that sows hatred. This is not merely about emotions or reactions, but rather about a discourse built on denying the "other," stripping them of their right to exist, and turning them into an existential enemy. When this speech is cloaked in fear, sectarianism, and racism, and adorned with false sanctity, it becomes the fuel that ignites conflict, prolongs it, and deepens its tragedies. In armed conflict, hate speech is not a passing emotional outburst but a calculated strategic tool used to achieve political or military objectives. It mobilizes support, justifies crimes, and legitimizes violations that rank among the most heinous under international law. The UN Security Council, in its most recent meeting (2 May 2024), discussed the rise of hate speech and disinformation as direct threats to international peace and security. The UN Secretary-General affirmed that 'when incitement to hatred goes unpunished, it leads to physical violence and mass atrocities.' These are not political exaggerations, they are documented facts in humanity's collective memory. The danger of hate speech lies in its ability to strip the other of their humanity. When a refugee, journalist, or someone of a different sect is portrayed as an existential threat, attacking them is no longer seen as a possibility -it is framed as a legitimate act of self-defense, even as a national or religious duty. The International Committee of the Red Cross has documented how such rhetoric complicates humanitarian aid delivery, fosters hostile environments for relief workers, and intimidates local communities from cooperating with humanitarian organizations, thus exacerbating the scale of the humanitarian catastrophe. A recent study published in Critical Arab-American Studies found that armed conflicts are fertile ground for the spread of racist discourse. These settings reshape identity into an extreme binary: "us" versus "them," "good" versus "evil," "humans" versus "monsters." This phenomenon cannot be addressed without mentioning the role of digital platforms. Today, the machinery of hate no longer needs radio stations, as in Rwanda. A single tweet, a video clip, or an organized hashtag is enough to spread a toxic narrative like a contagious disease, unchecked and unfiltered. Reports by the UN Human Rights Office show that social media platforms have become breeding grounds for hate speech during conflicts due to weak oversight and algorithms that amplify shocking content. What's even more dangerous is that these algorithms do not distinguish between satire and incitement to murder, or between criticism and hate propaganda. Under international human rights law, hate speech is addressed most clearly in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines in Article 19 the right to freedom of opinion and expression and guarantees protection from discrimination and incitement to it in Article 7, implicitly setting limits on expression when it incites discrimination or violence. The ICCPR's Article 19 also protects freedom of expression, while allowing necessary restrictions to respect others' rights or maintain public order. Crucially, Article 20(2) explicitly states: "Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law." This reflects that international law does not seek to restrict freedom of expression but to balance it with the protection of societies, especially vulnerable groups, from incitement to hatred and violence. In this context, the Rabat Plan of Action, launched by the UN Human Rights Office in 2012, serves as a key international reference to distinguish legitimate expression from criminally punishable speech. It relies on a precise assessment of a message's severity, intent, context, content, reach, and impact. The Plan established balanced standards that help states develop legal frameworks to effectively combat hate speech without infringing on free expression. In 2019, the United Nations launched its Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech, urging all UN bodies and Member States to adopt a preventive approach based on strengthening social cohesion, protecting communities from incitement to violence, and addressing the root causes of hate, such as marginalization, discrimination, and injustice. At the regional level, the UN Human Rights Office's Regional Office for the Middle East and North Africa places high priority on addressing hate speech in its programs. The office has trained hundreds of journalists on human rights-sensitive reporting, organized dialogues with youth, media institutions, and academia on hate speech and misinformation, and supported national and regional initiatives to amplify counter-narratives and promote pluralism and mutual respect, through partnerships with UN agencies, civil society organizations, and educational and media institutions. In one of my encounters with youth from a conflict-affected region, a 16-year-old boy asked me, 'Do they really see us as animals on the other side?' I paused in silence, at a loss for an immediate response. How could I explain to him that the incitement broadcast around the clock had portrayed him, his family, and friends as threats to be eradicated? How could I convince him that the world sees him as a full human being with rights and dignity, while the media messages reaching him depict him as nothing but a threat to be eliminated? In this regard, we recall a line from the UN's 1999 report on the Rwandan genocide: 'The genocide in Rwanda began with words, not bullets.' Words that stripped people of their humanity, paving the way for atrocities. Peace is not built by silencing guns alone. There is no reconciliation without justice, no justice without accountability, and no accountability without a frank and fundamental reckoning with hate speech. We need effective legal mechanisms to ensure accountability, including for incitement to hatred, regardless of its source, so that those responsible are not left unpunished. We also need serious partnerships with tech companies to impose strict controls on content inciting violence, and to empower local communities to produce alternative narratives that promote values of pluralism and mutual respect. Additionally, we must develop humanitarian media strategies that emphasize common human values and avoid divisive and polarizing rhetoric. Finally, integrating human rights education into school curricula from an early age is a necessary step to instill principles of cooperation and coexistence, instead of hatred and division. A word that incites today may become a crime tomorrow, not just in the eyes of the law, but in the conscience of humanity as well. read more Analysis- Turkey Has 0 Regional Allies... Why? Analysis: Russia, Turkey... Libya in Return For Syria? Analysis: Who Will Gain Trump's Peace Plan Fruits? Analysis: Will Turkey's Erdogan Resort to Snap Election? Analysis: What Are Turkey's Aspirations in Iraq? Opinion & Analysis Analysis: Mercenaries In Libya... Who Should Be Blamed? Opinion & Analysis Analysis- How 'Libya Nightmare' Takes Erdogan to Algiers Opinion & Analysis Analysis: What Happens After Brexit? Opinion & Analysis Analysis: Strategic Significance of Libya's Sirte, Jufra! News China Launches Largest Ever Aircraft Carrier Sports Former Al Zamalek Player Ibrahim Shika Passes away after Long Battle with Cancer Lifestyle Get to Know 2025 Eid Al Adha Prayer Times in Egypt Business Fear & Greed Index Plummets to Lowest Level Ever Recorded amid Global Trade War Arts & Culture Zahi Hawass: Claims of Columns Beneath the Pyramid of Khafre Are Lies News Flights suspended at Port Sudan Airport after Drone Attacks Videos & Features Video: Trending Lifestyle TikToker Valeria Márquez Shot Dead during Live Stream News Shell Unveils Cost-Cutting, LNG Growth Plan Technology 50-Year Soviet Spacecraft 'Kosmos 482' Crashes into Indian Ocean News 3 Killed in Shooting Attack in Thailand
Egypt Today
8 hours ago
- Egypt Today
Egypt's UN Envoy: What happens in Gaza stains int'l community
NEW YORK - 18 June 2025: Egypt's Permanent Representative to the United Nations Osama Abdel Khalek Tuesday strongly condemned the ongoing situation in the Gaza Strip, calling it 'a stain on the conscience of the international community' that must be brought to an immediate end. Addressing the UN General Assembly, Abdel Khalek urged member states to remain steadfast in their principled support of the Palestinian cause, emphasizing the importance of establishing an independent Palestinian state with al-Quds (East Jerusalem) as its capital and granting it full membership in the United Nations, describing this as the only path to peace in the region. There is no room for neutrality—silence is complicity, and hesitation in supporting the Palestinian right is betrayal, he said. Voting in favor of any forthcoming resolution aimed at saving civilians in Palestinian territories is a legal obligation and a moral necessity, he added. He also criticized the most recent use of the veto in the UN Security Council, stating it disregarded international responsibility and allowed Israel to persist in its brutal aggression against unarmed civilians in Gaza. He stressed that such repeated actions highlight the urgent need for comprehensive reform of the UNSC—chief among them, addressing the structural flaw in the veto system once and for all. He continued, this latest veto does not change two glaring facts. First, Israel is systematically committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, orchestrated by far-right Israeli leadership and top officials—who must be held accountable, he said. Second, there is clear and overwhelming international consensus demanding an immediate end to this unjust war and the protection of the Palestinian people, as reflected by the sweeping support for the resolution adopted on June 12, he added. In his speech before the UNGA, Abdel Khalek said the international community has a legal and moral obligation that cannot be evaded—to reject such use of the veto and to refuse to let it serve as a political or legal cover for the continuation of war. The right of veto does not supersede international law, nor does it rise above human nature that refuses the killing of children and innocent people in Gaza, he added. 'All members of the international community must exert every possible pressure on Israel to stop its aggression, lift the blockade and starvation policies, allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza without conditions, and implement relevant UN resolutions, including the provisional measures ordered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).' He called for the development of international humanitarian law terminology to address the crimes committed by Israel in Gaza, saying the Palestinian people have the right to have their suffering recognized and the crimes committed against them acknowledged—crimes that have persisted for decades. The Palestinians are the only people enduring war crimes and unprecedented atrocities broadcast live to the world, with no end in sight, he added. Egypt is committed to its mediation efforts, in cooperation with Qatar and the United States, to reach a permanent ceasefire and end the Israeli blockade on Gaza, he stressed. He noted that this mediation effort does not contradict the role of the United Nations and its bodies in stopping the aggression and saving innocent civilians. In a related context, Egypt's representative condemned the Israeli attacks on Iran, stressing Egypt's rejection of any actions that violate international law, the UN Charter, or the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states. He expressed deep concern over this dangerous escalation, which threatens serious consequences for the security of the Middle East.
Al-Ahram Weekly
a day ago
- Al-Ahram Weekly
Eritreans face 'systemic' rights violations: UN expert - Africa
Eritreans face severe rights violations under the three-decade rule of President Isaias Afwerki, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in Eritrea has said. The small country of around 3.5 million people in the Horn of Africa is sometimes nicknamed the "North Korea of Africa". It consistently ranks among the worst in the world for rights, in last place for press freedom, according to Reporters Without Borders, and 175th out of 183 for human development in 2022, according to the United Nations. "Violations are systemic, and the need for accountability is urgent," said Mohamed Abdelsalam Babiker, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in Eritrea, speaking at a summit in Geneva on Monday. The single-party state has been ruled for more than 30 years by Afwerki, who led the country to independence from Ethiopia. He has violently suppressed dissent, often locking up opponents without trial for decades in horrific conditions. Civilians are conscripted for life into the army or subjected to forced labour under a national service system the UN has likened to slavery. "To those detained without charges or trial, who have not been heard from in decades, your names will continue to be spoken," said Babiker, who was not allowed to enter the country for the report. Eritrea's charge d'affaires to the UN in Geneva, Habtom Zerai, criticised the report, claiming it "lacks objectivity, transparency, accountability and balance." Follow us on: Facebook Instagram Whatsapp Short link:
