Resilience in Action: Refugee-Led Organizations Respond to Crisis in Lebanon
Dr. Claude Samaha, Research Technical Manager with Basmeh & Zeitooneh
Introduction
The 2024 Israeli military aggression on Lebanon triggered one of the most severe humanitarian crises in the country’s recent history, displacing over 1.2 million people (UNHCR, 2024). Decades of political dysfunction, economic decline, and chronic underinvestment in public services had already eroded the capacity of national institutions. Consequently, the Lebanese state was unable to deliver an effective emergency response (UN News, 2025). In the crucial early days of the crisis, international humanitarian mechanisms proved slow to mobilize and coordinate. In contrast, refugee-led organizations (RLOs)—many of them forged in previous emergencies—emerged as frontline responders. These groups suspended their regular programming, reallocated limited resources, and delivered critical assistance, protection, and coordination on the ground.
This mobilization unfolded in a highly challenging context for Syrian refugees, characterized by intensifying security restrictions and escalating hostile rhetoric from certain political actors (Musarea, 2024). Despite this hostile climate, RLOs upheld the principle of indivisible humanity—the conviction that all lives are equally valuable and deserving of dignity and protection in times of crisis. Their response transcended legal classifications and political divides, extending assistance to Lebanese citizens, Syrian and Palestinian refugees, migrant workers, and other marginalized groups.
This commentary examines the role of refugee-led organizations during the 2024 escalation, arguing that these groups acted not only as first responders but also as embodiments of an alternative, community-centered model of humanitarian governance. Their leadership drew on years of experience navigating exclusion, scarcity, and overlapping crises. In doing so, they advanced a humanitarian model grounded in proximity, trust, and translocal solidarity (Diab & al., 2024). The events of 2024 thus prompt a critical reflection on how legitimacy is constructed within the humanitarian sector, and whose capacities are recognized as authoritative (Fiddian & Qasmiyeh, 2020).
This analysis is based on field research conducted with 12 refugee-led organizations across Lebanon between January and May 2025. These RLOs varied in size, geographic scope, and areas of thematic intervention. The research was conducted in accordance with strict ethical protocols, including informed consent and confidentiality safeguards, to ensure the safety and dignity of participants. While qualitative in nature, the findings offer significant insights into how refugee-led groups navigate systemic exclusion, chronic underfunding, and political constraints while continuing to act as agents of care and coordination during acute emergencies.
Historical Roots and Structural Exclusion
Refugee-led organizations (RLOs) in Lebanon did not emerge spontaneously. Their formation can be traced to the early years of the Syrian displacement crisis (2012–2013), when the absence of adequate formal humanitarian support compelled communities to self-organize (Baroud, 2023). What began as informal mutual aid initiatives gradually evolved into more structured entities, engaging in education, health referrals, protection, and local advocacy. A series of overlapping emergencies—the 2019 financial collapse, the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2020 Beirut port explosion, and the 2022 cholera outbreak—further consolidated the role of RLOs as integral actors in Lebanon’s localized response systems (Diab et al., 2024).
Yet this accumulated expertise has not translated into institutional recognition. Despite their demonstrated ability to lead during crises, RLOs continue to operate within a humanitarian ecosystem that privileges international actors over grassroots initiatives. This marginalization is systemic. Historically, refugee-led groups have been framed as recipients of aid rather than as capable responders. Despite a decade of global commitments to localize aid—such as the 2016 Grand Bargain—little progress has been made in Lebanon. In 2023, the overwhelming majority of humanitarian funding was still channeled to international NGOs and UN agencies, with only a fraction reaching regional or local actors (Grand Bargain Report, 2022; OCHA, 2023).
This funding disparity reflects deeper structural imbalances within the humanitarian system. UN agencies and large INGOs continue to dominate decisions about resource allocation, legitimacy, and strategy—often privileging donor compliance and bureaucratic transparency over responsiveness to affected communities. As a result, RLOs, despite enjoying deep-rooted trust within their communities and working on the front lines, are routinely relegated to the role of implementers rather than strategic leaders. Bureaucratic hurdles—such as donor risk aversion, complex reporting requirements, and restrictions on funding to unregistered groups—continue to limit their access to resources and influence.
This history of exclusion directly shaped RLOs’ response to the 2024 crisis. Operating largely outside formal coordination mechanisms, they had already developed resilient, community-based strategies rooted in adaptability and proximity. When the Israeli military escalation overwhelmed Lebanon’s already weakened public institutions and displaced more than a million people, RLOs were among the first to respond—often within hours—while international agencies remained constrained by risk assessments and bureaucratic delays (IOM, 2024; UNHCR, 2024). Their embeddedness within marginalized communities—including Syrian and Palestinian refugees, migrant workers, and LGBTQ+ individuals—enabled them to provide essential services and shelter to groups systematically excluded by the state and overlooked by many international actors.
Understanding this legacy is essential. The leadership demonstrated by RLOs in 2024 was not improvised, but the result of a decade spent responding to institutional neglect, cultivating trust, and adapting to exclusion. Their role in this crisis offers a powerful case for reimagining humanitarian leadership, legitimacy, and inclusion in protracted emergency settings. It calls for a shift away from top-down models toward a more equitable and participatory humanitarian architecture that recognizes and supports the leadership of those closest to the crisis.
RLOs as First Responders
As previously outlined, refugee-led organizations (RLOs) responded swiftly to the 2024 crisis with community-anchored strategies forged through years of exclusion, adaptation, and grassroots organizing. When state institutions faltered and international responses lagged, RLOs immediately stepped in to fill critical humanitarian gaps.
Within hours of the mass displacement, and often before international actors had completed security assessments, RLOs were already delivering essential aid to both Lebanese internally displaced persons (IDPs) and Syrian refugees—many of whom were denied access to official shelters. Their close proximity to affected populations, coupled with their ability to bypass bureaucratic delays, enabled a nimble, inclusive, and needs-driven response at a time when formal systems struggled to mobilize.
In southern Lebanon, Basmeh & Zeitooneh led one of the earliest interventions in Nabatieh, a town heavily affected by bombardment. As one staff member recalled: “We were the first to reach Nabatieh and provide direct support to families who had been stuck for days in municipal buildings with no assistance, no food, and no access to basic services.” Operating without formal clearance, the organization coordinated directly with local authorities to access hard-hit areas, exemplifying a bold, informal model of humanitarian action that filled urgent gaps left by both state and UN systems.
A parallel dynamic unfolded in the Beqaa Valley, where Syrian refugees were systematically excluded from public shelters. Nehna La Ba3ed responded by opening community centers with the backing of local security forces, despite being denied approval by higher-level authorities. One member explained: “The Lebanese government had not approved the establishment of a dedicated shelter for displaced Syrian refugees, leaving many of them to sleep on the streets.”
In the face of this institutional exclusion, RLOs mobilized independently and at speed. Frontliners for Change (FCC) launched a community kitchen by Day 2 of the crisis without any earmarked emergency funding. Others adapted existing infrastructure: SAWA converted education centers into temporary shelters within 48 hours. As their Program Manager explained, “We realized newly displaced Syrian refugees were not being accommodated in government shelters. We had to act swiftly.”
Importantly, RLOs recognized that displacement cut across legal and national lines. Their aid extended to Lebanese IDPs, undocumented refugees, migrant workers, and others left without protection or shelter. Women Now suspended its regular programming and reallocated donor funds to deliver emergency support—providing psychological first aid, dignity kits, and menstrual hygiene supplies to women and girls residing in overcrowded schools-turned-shelters.
Beyond immediate relief, some RLOs also addressed the psychosocial strains and tensions that displacement exacerbated. In Tripoli, SADA facilitated arts-based psychosocial support to help ease friction between displaced families and host communities: “We created a space where both the host community and the displaced could meet and break the ice.”
In the absence of access to formal coordination platforms, RLOs activated informal communication and support networks. These included social media, personal contacts, and grassroots coalitions. As Basmeh & Zeitooneh’s operations manager noted: “In the first 48 hours, we couldn’t wait for approvals—we just used our own WhatsApp groups to mobilize help and get food to displaced families.” These informal but highly effective mechanisms ensured access for underserved populations, including stateless persons and LGBTQ+ individuals, often overlooked by formal humanitarian actors.
As one leader from Nehna La Ba3ed emphasized, “Refugee-led organizations should be given priority… With our deep experience, local presence, and understanding of the situation, we are better positioned to make a meaningful impact.”
Throughout the 2024 crisis, RLOs operated on the principle of indivisible humanity, responding to need rather than legal status or nationality. Their approach rejected rigid classifications in favor of dignity-based care. As a leader from Etijahat put it: “We don’t ask who they are. We ask what they need.”
From Crisis to Credibility
This sustained state of readiness has elevated refugee-led organizations (RLOs) from reactive responders to recognized leaders in humanitarian response. Their ability to act effectively under immense pressure challenges conventional assumptions about who holds the expertise and legitimacy to lead during crises. The 2024 escalation in Lebanon reaffirmed what many working closely with RLOs have long known: their effectiveness stems not only from deep community embeddedness but also from cumulative crisis experience, strategic agility, and legitimacy grounded in lived realities.
Across repeated emergencies—floods, fires, pandemics, and armed conflict—RLOs have consistently demonstrated the capacity to redeploy resources with speed, precision, and contextual sensitivity. As the leader of Basmat Amal explained: “As displaced individuals, we have experienced a similar situation ourselves. We relied on our experience as Syrian refugees and the needs we faced during that time. We drew from that experience in our response.”
Such credibility is cumulative. A staff member from Molham recalled: “Five years ago, when flooding occurred in Syrian refugee camps in the Beqaa, our swift response helped build strong trust with the community. Our intervention in Karantina after the port explosion further strengthened that credibility.” These past interventions have not only built organizational capacity but have also forged durable trust among displaced populations.
RLOs exemplify strategic adaptability, quickly adjusting their operations in response to shifting emergencies. Drawing on localized knowledge, community trust, and flexible resource allocation, they respond effectively without the need for centralized directives or formal coordination. The head of Frontliners for Change (FFC) described this internal infrastructure: “Our organization focuses on protection, education, knowledge transfer, and relief. In times of crisis, our relief efforts take precedence, and we have developed an emergency response policy to guide our actions.”
This form of preparedness—what some describe as protection by presence—emerges not from institutional mandates but from continuity, proximity, and sustained relationships on the ground. It is precisely this embeddedness that allows RLOs to act decisively at times when international actors are delayed by risk protocols, administrative hurdles, or internal review processes.
The accumulated impact of such interventions has not only solidified RLOs’ credibility within communities but has also begun to attract the attention of select donors. Their lean structures and local accountability mechanisms make them compelling partners. As one representative from Basmat Amal noted: “We’ve received two donations for the current relief program. The donor was encouraged to support us because they knew that we do not pay managerial salaries.” In this case, transparency and cost-efficiency become strategic assets in a sector often criticized for its opacity.
Yet, the very qualities that make RLOs attractive to donors—efficiency, accountability, and resilience—can also become traps when they are instrumentalized rather than meaningfully supported. Resilience, particularly in protracted crises, becomes both a necessary adaptation and an imposed expectation. As a staff member from Etijahat reflected: “We’ve learned from our past experiences, and the idea of intervention has evolved into a form of resilience.” But this resilience should not be misconstrued as infinite capacity. It is not a slogan—it is a survival strategy born of repeated abandonment and structural neglect.
Conclusion
The lessons of 2024 compel humanitarian actors to move beyond rhetorical commitments and pursue genuine structural transformation. This final reflection underscores what is at stake if these lessons are ignored.
The Israeli military aggression on Lebanon exposed the persistent failures of the formal humanitarian system—already debilitated by years of political instability and economic collapse. In stark contrast, refugee-led organizations (RLOs) responded rapidly and effectively, not through improvisation, but through strategies honed over years of exclusion, resilience, and proximity to crisis. Their actions were not reactive but the outcome of grounded preparedness, built on trust and lived experience. Yet despite their proven leadership, RLOs remain systemically marginalized—excluded from coordination platforms, deprived of direct funding, and relegated to token roles without real influence.
The risk is not simply stagnation, but the co-optation of refugee leadership: a future in which RLOs are acknowledged symbolically but denied the autonomy, resources, and authority their work clearly warrants. If the humanitarian sector is serious about reform, recognition must be accompanied by structural shifts. This includes equitable funding practices that provide RLOs with direct financial access, bypassing the bureaucratic gatekeeping that continues to favor large international NGOs. It also requires a reimagining of governance: RLOs must be included not as subcontractors, but as full decision-makers in the planning, coordination, and implementation of crisis responses. This means establishing fast-track, low-barrier funding mechanisms and granting RLOs full voting power within humanitarian coordination systems.
Supporting refugee-led organizations is not an act of charity—it is a strategic and moral imperative. These are actors who have already demonstrated their capacity to lead under pressure, to reach the most marginalized, and to deliver aid rooted in dignity, accountability, and proximity.
The 2024 crisis not only revealed the vulnerabilities of the current humanitarian system—it also illuminated the contours of a more just, effective, and accountable alternative. RLOs have shown what is possible when aid is grounded in community trust, lived experience, and direct responsiveness to those most affected. Building a more equitable humanitarian system requires more than symbolic inclusion. It demands that refugee-led organizations be resourced, protected, and empowered as equal partners—recognized not merely as participants, but as architects of humanitarian futures.
This article is part of a series of articles commissioned under the ‘Resilience and Inclusive Politics in the Arab Region’, generously funded by the Carnegie Corporation.