From hatred to reconciliation: How can Syria learn from postwar experiences?

War and suffering in Syria did not end with the ceasefire and the fall of the Baathist regime. Their effects continue to shape society through collective memory, fear and mistrust. The battle has shifted from the front lines to the media and social media platforms, where rumors turn into accusations, accusations into incitement, and incitement into collective hatred that paves the way for renewed violence.

During the transitional period, repeated warnings have emerged about the growing spread of hate speech and sectarian incitement through the media and social media platforms, and their consequences for social peace. The daily crimes reported by ANHA agency in Syria amid this escalation illustrate the scale of the problem, including killings, kidnappings and accusations.

Syria's own experience shows that this problem is not new. The United Nations has documented for years how hate speech and incitement deepen social divisions, while UNESCO has supported efforts to establish mechanisms for monitoring hate speech and incitement to violence in Syrian media.

When the other becomes the enemy

The United Nations warns that the danger arises when discourse shifts from criticizing individuals, organizations or political positions to holding an entire group responsible for the actions of individuals, or portraying a religious sect, ethnic group or region as a collective enemy.

At that point, it becomes easier to justify revenge, and the victim is seen by the perpetrator merely as someone belonging to the “wrong group,” rather than as a human being with rights.

The United Nations therefore warns that such rhetoric can undermine social cohesion and pave the way for discrimination and violence. Historical experiences have also shown that incitement can escalate into mass atrocities.

Rwanda: When the media fueled genocide

Rwanda is one of the clearest examples of the dangers of media incitement. Before and during the 1994 genocide, hate speech and ethnic labeling in the media helped dehumanize the Tutsi and incite violence against them. This environment culminated in the killing of hundreds of thousands of people in approximately 100 days. The UN has emphasized that the Rwandan genocide demonstrated, in devastating terms, the link between hate speech and mass violence.

Rwanda later offered a different example through reconciliation programs aimed at reintegrating survivors and perpetrators into local communities, with a focus on acknowledging the past and preventing divisions from recurring.

Local initiatives, including reconciliation villages, demonstrate how people from opposing sides of a conflict have been able to move from hostility toward cooperation and coexistence.

Myanmar: When hatred moved from the screen to the streets

In Myanmar, the spread of hate speech and disinformation targeting the Rohingya helped create a highly dangerous environment before waves of violence and displacement.

Government documentation indicates that hate speech on social media did not remain confined to the digital sphere but was linked to tensions, unrest and violence on the ground. A 2024 academic study titled “When Facebook Is the Internet: The Role of Social Media in Ethnic Conflict” found evidence of an association between Facebook availability and a higher likelihood of conflict, specifically in the context of the Rohingya crisis.

The study is significant because it offers a more cautious interpretation. It said, “Social media did not create the conflict from scratch, but it provided an environment that enabled hate speech and disinformation to spread and reach a wide audience amid deep-rooted political and ethnic divisions.”

This experience offers an important lesson for Syria, according to observers. A misleading video or an inflammatory post is not always just digital content; it can become part of a chain of events that influences people's behavior and decisions toward another group.

Bosnia: The end of war does not mean the end of hatred

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the war ended, but the effects of division remained visible in politics, the media and public memory. Disputes over war crimes, their denial and the glorification of those responsible have continued.

In June 2026, the UN and its partners launched an initiative to counter hate speech and divisive narratives in the country. The initiative seeks to promote equality and challenge rhetoric that undermines trust between communities and obstructs reconciliation.

The lesson is clear: a war can end militarily while continuing within society through competing narratives.

South Africa: Truth as a path to reconciliation

By contrast, South Africa chose a different path after the end of apartheid through its Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which provided a platform for victims to be heard, violations to be exposed and the past to be confronted.

Although the process was far from perfect and South Africa continues to face criticism over cases that have not resulted in justice, the experience offered an important example of how acknowledging victims' suffering and allowing them to share their accounts can contribute to rebuilding society.

South Africa's experience offers another lesson for Syria: reconciliation should not mean abandoning justice. Unresolved cases of killings and disappearances have brought painful issues back to the fore decades later.

Northern Ireland: Differences do not have to lead back to war

Northern Ireland offers a different model, based on the idea that a society does not necessarily have to eliminate political or religious differences to live in peace.

After decades of conflict, the peace process was built on recognizing multiple identities, sharing power and establishing political mechanisms that allow opposing parties to compete and disagree without returning to violence.

One of the most important lessons Syria can draw from this experience is that reconciliation does not require Syrians to share the same political views, identities or outlooks. Instead, it requires that differences be managed through dialogue and the law rather than weapons.

Syria faces two paths

Despite their different circumstances, these experiences point to a common conclusion, as observers emphasize: when differences turn into hatred, hatred into incitement, and incitement into violence, society risks reproducing war in new forms.

When differences instead lead to dialogue, and reconciliation is accompanied by truth, justice and accountability, rebuilding trust becomes possible, even if the process is gradual.

Syrian activists and politicians argue that combating hate speech in Syria does not mean banning political criticism or silencing the opposition. Criticism is a right, and disagreement is natural. The red line is crossed when rhetoric turns into incitement to discriminate against, express hostility toward or commit violence against a group because of its identity.

A-H 

ANHA