As war returns to Lebanon, so does a familiar climate of digital intimidation. Across social media platforms and private messaging channels, journalists, reformists, and dissenting public voices are once again being subjected to waves of vilification, incitement, and direct harassment.

The pattern is not new, but its renewed intensity is alarming. In recent days, explicit threats have resurfaced alongside waves of harassment driven not only by anonymous accounts but also by partisan media figures, influencers, and politically aligned voices that help turn public disagreement into open hostility. What often begins as an accusation or moral condemnation can quickly escalate into something more dangerous: calls for punishment, threats of violence, and harassment that spills beyond public timelines into direct personal targeting.

This is not simply a matter of “angry posts” circulating online. The atmosphere is being shaped by a broader ecosystem of mutually reinforcing voices. As in previous wartime cycles, politically charged narratives are amplified by accounts with large reach, media-adjacent figures, and public commentators who frame critics as suspicious, disloyal, or deserving of public attack. In such a climate, the line between denunciation and incitement quickly erodes.

Recent online activity illustrates this dynamic clearly. Posts and stories circulated by prominent partisan voices and influencers have fueled a climate of fear, suspicion, and communal targeting. In one instance, rhetoric surrounding the alleged presence of Iranians in Beirut hotels was amplified in ways that linked rumor, wartime panic, and public alarmism. Such messaging does not need to contain an explicit threat to be dangerous. By framing certain people or groups as suspects, exposed, or blameworthy at a moment of war, it normalizes hostility and creates a permissive environment for escalation.

Similar patterns of digital intimidation were documented during previous wartime escalations, including the 2023-2024 war, when critics of dominant political narratives were rapidly targeted online.

That escalation has also been visible in the attacks directed at journalist Dima Sadek. While Sadek is only one of several figures targeted in the current wave, the rhetoric used against her is particularly revealing. Public posts denouncing her have gone well beyond insult or political disagreement.

The rhetoric moved into open dehumanization, moral vilification, and, in some cases, explicit calls for her killing. Once this kind of public shaming is normalized by prominent voices, direct threats begin to appear less like isolated excesses and more like the predictable extension of a broader campaign of intimidation.

The danger does not remain confined to public platforms. In some cases, the hostility spills directly into private spaces. Repeated phone calls, abusive messages, and harassment through messaging applications form part of the same ecosystem of intimidation.

These tactics do more than insult or provoke. They are designed to instill fear, overwhelm their targets, and signal that the consequences of speaking publicly could go beyond online backlash.

The current escalation also shows that this atmosphere is not being produced solely by anonymous or fringe users. Named partisan media figures have also contributed to the climate of incitement. The recent controversy surrounding Ali Berro, whose online posts included inflammatory accusations against critics of Hezbollah’s wartime strategy and overt threats targeting public figures and senior politicians, illustrates how inflammatory rhetoric by media-linked personalities can cross into overt threats and speech that risks deepening Lebanon’s sectarian and political divisions.

Cases like this underscore a broader point: the digital intimidation now re-emerging in Lebanon is being shaped both from below and from above, by swarms of hostile users as well as by recognizable voices with political and media influence.

War creates precisely the conditions in which this kind of rhetoric spreads most easily. It narrows the space for nuance, rewards emotional certainty, and turns disagreement into suspicion. Under such pressure, criticism can be recast as betrayal, dissent as disloyalty, and independent public speech as a threat to communal cohesion. Once that shift takes hold, journalists, reformists, and human rights defenders become easier to stigmatize and easier to target.

For this reason, the current wave should not be dismissed as routine online toxicity. It reflects a broader wartime dynamic in which accusation, intimidation, and threat are used to police the boundaries of acceptable speech. Its impact extends beyond the individuals immediately targeted. It sends a wider message to anyone considering speaking critically in a time of conflict: that dissent may come at a personal cost.

The return of war has once again revived a machinery of online intimidation that punishes dissent through public shaming, intimidation, and direct threats. More dangerous still is the wider environment in which aligned voices normalize hostility toward critics and make violent rhetoric feel permissible.

The Samir Kassir Foundation is continuing to monitor the current escalation, including hostile online mobilization, threats against journalists and public figures, and patterns of coordinated amplification that contribute to this increasingly dangerous climate. Further findings will be published in the coming days.