When Fear Speaks
How fear is often dismissed as sectarianism while citizens navigate crises without protection or accountability.
Wars. Assassinations. Explosions. Collapse. One crisis hits, and another follows, each leaving its mark while accountability never comes, solutions never arrive, and protection is nowhere to be found.
Amid this cascade of crises, citizens are expected to stand united even as fear seeps into every corner of their lives, as if it could simply be switched off at will. Meanwhile, the state hesitates, falters, or remains paralyzed, leaving people powerless and alone amid chaos. And yet, any expression of fear is too often dismissed as sectarianism.
But to what extent can we ask people living under constant threat to rise above fear? How can we demand rational judgment when armed groups openly promise to overturn state decisions by force, and when the history and vulnerability of places like Quarantina are ignored? To label these concerns as “sectarianism” is not only unfair; it is dangerously dismissive.
A society cannot survive, let alone grow, without a state capable of protecting its people. A state must communicate clearly, enforce its decisions, hold armed actors accountable, and reassure citizens rather than leaving them to fend for themselves. Citizens cannot carry the burden of fear while the state hesitates, fails, or is influenced by armed groups that dictate war and policy.
Yet this is exactly what is being asked of them. Concerns about shelters, public services, or security decisions are often treated as minor inconveniences, while those raising them are quickly labeled sectarian. For example, when the government says “we met with a delegation from Beirut 1 ,” regarding the “Quarantina shelter” it signals, intentionally or not, that citizens’ concerns are being framed as representing a particular group or political leaning. Meanwhile, threats go unchecked, armed groups carry fake IDs (according to the government), and legitimate fears are dismissed as “unjustified,” “insensitive,” or “sectarian.” Across multiple cases, the contradictions are glaring: a state that promises action against illegal weapons but overlooks those who threaten violence; a state unable to track armed actors while citizens’ fears are framed as sectarian; and a society divided, where some political actors or narratives reinforce this dismissal, portraying those raising concerns as extreme, and where parts of the government fail to address these perceptions effectively.
We are now four weeks into the war, with over one million displaced. Just yesterday, the Quasmiye bridge connecting the country to the south was bombed, and yet the government offers no concrete plan to secure a ceasefire or stop the war, only that “we are ready to negotiate,” as if mere readiness alone were enough.
We hear that “we will not fall for threats”. Great! But what can the state actually do? Why are no alternative solutions offered? What is the backup plan if negotiations fail? Or doesn’t happen? Shall we wait indefinitely, or only until all bridges to the south are destroyed, cutting the country off completely up to the Awali River? In the meantime, people are on edge, and threats continue from all sides, while the state offers nothing but words.
People are asked to remain calm and rational, as though their survival instincts could be switched off. They are expected to absorb the state’s failures, its secrecy, and its inability to act decisively and still trust that everything will somehow be fine.Sectarianism is rarely innate; it takes root where the state fails, where past wars remain unresolved, grievances ignored, and fear unmanaged. For the last twenty years, a state within the state has divided the country into factions, further weakening central authority.
During this time, voices raising legitimate concerns were often dismissed as sectarian, forcing people into self-censorship, constantly worrying that speaking up would make them targets of accusation. The divisions, suspicions, and labels that now define public discourse are a consequence of these failures, not an inherent trait of those living in fear.
This is the reality: fear is not irrational here. Fear is survival. And this is not about fear or sectarianism; it is about the failure of those entrusted with power and those who hijacked the country to serve foreign interests.
