17 Aug 2024 Communication in conflict situations

George Sahhar

Communication in conflict situations is inherently from the field up. It has to be about the people who need help due to political violence, natural disaster, or any other type of calamity. It is not about the institution offering the interventions, and definitely not about the humanitarian aid workers – otherwise the real story will be lost. This article focuses on the model I have been using in crisis communication over the years and explains how and why it developed the way it did.

The first time I worked on the issue was during the Israeli invasion of the West Bank in 2002. The approach I took was to prepare feature stories around the various calamity situations that had to be addressed. In doing so, the people’s needs and fears were narrated, as well as the aggression they were subjected to.

During that invasion, I learned that policy for humanitarian aid cannot come from policy makers, it has to come from the people. The job of policy makers is to listen to the needs and to articulate it in a programmatic framework based on International Law and International Humanitarian Law, and on a set deliverables.

A common mistake we all fall into during communication in conflict situations, is that we do not always separate the forest from the trees, and we tend to think of humanitarian needs in general instead of looking at the inflicted communities at the micro level as well. For example, a certain community is besieged and needs water supply, this on top of the overall invasion occurring in the community and elsewhere. Both micro and macro interventions are needed simultaneously, and neither can come at the expense of the other. Crisis communication during the 2002 Israeli invasion was not about looking at either the forest or the trees; more often than not it was a combination of both.

The approach I took during the invasion was to find ordinary people who suffered due to a specific human rights violation, and to have them tell us their story. The approach turned out to be most informative to policymakers locally and internationally. From the people we heard a detailed description of prison conditions, shortages of medical supplies, water depravation, extra-judicial killings, and home demolitions and indiscriminate attacks. The human story, therefore, led us to adopt intervention policies and to develop calls for action based on International Law and International Humanitarian Law.

In addition to the communication content that fed into policy and humanitarian interventions, there was also the need for a communication effort where immediate mitigation was needed at the micro level through international organizations in the field. For example, a woman on her way to give birth was trapped in an ambulance for hours and not allowed to proceed to the hospital, or a community under siege for days was running out of food. These were day to day unexpected occurrences that had to be addressed, and that had to have a designated person on standby to follow-up the communication and send alerts to international organizations.

Information integrity

The second time I dealt with crisis communication was in 2005 during the Israeli disengagement from Gaza. Knowing beforehand that it was going to happen gave me some time to plan, but no one had any idea how it was going to happen, how long it would take, and therefore what impact it would have on the civilian population in Gaza. It turned out that two million people were placed under curfew.

Before the disengagement, I made contact with community NGOs in the Gaza Strip, and one person was designated in each of the various neighbourhoods to send me an update everyday throughout the curfew that was announced in his or her community. The updates would include children’s needs, medical needs, and women’s needs. I would take the reports, look at trends, amalgamate them and send it for the world with a call for action.

One of the most sensitive aspects of the process that put pressure on the emergency communication staff is the need for urgent information, and the speed by which the recipients expect that information. Accuracy of the information, and the need to verify it, take precedence over speed. As the old saying goes “Better safe than sorry.”

Sending out information under pressure that proves to be inaccurate damages the credibility of the information that will be sent out the next time around. So, my advice to those working during emergency situations is not to succumb to the pressure created by the need for speedy information. Always take your time and think twice before sending out something.

Another issue of great sensitivity is the preservation of the dignity, confidentiality, and wishes of the people we are trying to help. In our eagerness to tell the story, we must always slow down to make sure that the interviewed persons agree to tell the story the way we are telling it, and without any well-intentioned pressure created by communication workers. There are also safety needs, and we do not want people getting hurt after the story is published.

Overall, crisis communication is about people who need help. It should never be the story about the humanitarian aid worker nor about the organization doing the job, as this will dilute the focus of the communication effort. In the short run, the content we create must lead to proactive programmatic interventions, but in the greater order of things the content has ramifications for the dignity, safety, and well-being of the people we are trying to help.

More often than not, we tend to forget that the content we create provides a historical narrative that will be revisited – possibly after many generations – by those who want to avoid the repeat of similar tragedies and who want to learn from the documented experience. Accuracy, and verifying the information before it goes out, are paramount when we think of our role in the long-run and how our work will be received.

George Sahhar is a career advocacy and communication person. He has represented some of the largest projects implemented in the occupied Palestinian territories. The implementers and funders included CARE International, MWM Americas Inc, the United States Agency for International development, the European Union, the Middle East Partnerships Initiative, and Amideast. He also took up consultancies with the United Nations Relief and Work Agency for Palestine Refugees, UN Women, the German GIZ, and Italian Cooperation. George was part of the team that founded the Palestinian Education Ministry, where he served as International Relations Director. George is also a simultaneous interpreter and has worked with internationally renowned personalities, world leaders, as well as CNN and CBS. He is also a trainer of communication skills, mostly with the youth. George joined the Jerusalem office of the World Council of Churches in November 2021 as Advocacy Officer.