Hate Speech in Times of Armed Conflict: When Words Become Instruments of Mass Killing

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.