By: Angelika Santaniello
Photography by: Céline Estèbe
In a time when information is readily available, how can a person be sure they understand the dimensions of global crises? Many people simply read the news – pockets of information often tainted with biases and descriptive overtones. However, this approach risks missing the mark. For those aiming to avoid ‘tunnel vision’ – an outlook that inhibits an appropriate way of responding to a global conflict – a textured understanding is needed. Call it a multifaceted approach: an accessible, nuanced way of understanding international crises. But how can this be done?
Panels and public events are one such means. ‘International Organisations in Crisis: Palestine, Paralysis, and Progress’, hosted by the new LSESU War Studies Society this October exemplified the value of adopting a multi-dimensional approach to understanding the reality of an ongoing crisis. This panel concerned the role of international organisations in responding to the war in the Middle East, being the first public event with external speakers organised by the society.
Yet, this event was more than just a vessel to promote the War Studies Society. Take the horseshoe seating arrangement of the room in Marshall Building, filled with approximately 100 LSE students and external guests: everyone faced each other, attendees and speakers alike. The dynamic heart of the panel was the speakers’ multifaceted backgrounds of expertise; the atmosphere reflected a common aim of understanding the reality of an ongoing crisis, uncovering flaws in the sources we rely on. Is this an image of engagement with accessible, multi-dimensional education?
Observing the panel from the audience, I was drawn to the digestible nature of the discussions, suitable for attendees from many academic backgrounds. I picked up on a salient lens adopted by Dr Patrick Gill-Tiney (LSE Fellow Department for International Relations): the 2024 US Presidential Election. While addressing both Kamala Harris’ likely “mild pressure” on Israel and Donald Trump’s unlikelihood to support peacekeeping negotiations, he underscored the candidates’ contrasting approaches with a public-private distinction. Under a Harris administration, Gill-Tiney argued, “US support would likely remain strong” in “public venues like the [UN Security Council]”.
After the panel, I asked Dr Gill-Tiney to expand on how an ordinary person should understand the legal-political dimension of the conflict, referring to the UN General Assembly’s (UNGA) resolution on Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territory. He advised me to “think of them more as recommendations or as a reflection of global opinion,” stressing that UNGA lacks the authority to “force” Israel’s withdrawal. Pivotally, he applied topical and contested matters to drive a more technical, analytical understanding of the conflict.
Following Trump’s electoral victory in early November, he emphasised the “sadly negative [geopolitical] consequences” expected. “Military support for Ukraine will dwindle… Israel may seek to annex [more] land… and may receive US support for approval to widen the conflict.”“All rather bleak,” he concluded.
What seemed equally bleak during the panel was the speakers’ shared pessimistic tone – departing from predictions – when answering a fundamental question: “What is the future of Palestine?” One panellist, who wished to remain anonymous, stated that we must “return to the core issue”, “shy away from what will happen”, and instead focus on “what should happen”. Another panellist, whose identity will not be disclosed, similarly described the UN as “an organisation [that] does not have any powerful tools to put pressure on anyone” during a “whole world problem”, where “people … are powerless” and clearly neglected by international actors.
This reveals the public’s tendency to focus on media-based predictions, ignoring the nuances of international responses, and probes a greater reflection on how an ordinary person’s concern for crises is heavily curated by the media, hindering the development of an accurate understanding of the situation on the ground. Like the ongoing, yet increasingly less reported Russia-Ukraine war, the media is slowly shifting the limelight from Israel and Palestine towards Lebanon. This way, global humanitarian crises are no longer treated as matters the public must be profoundly aware of and act upon.
For the final 15 minutes, the panel transformed into an organ for debate, and the attendees’ questions offered a textured perspective. One American student asked: “I hear the idea of the US not getting involved too much…is the US trying to maintain a delusion of neutrality?”, depicting a sense of harsh reality. Jayyab Abusafia, UK-based journalist from the Jabalia refugee camp in Northern Gaza, answered the question with a personalised overtone, describing Gazans as “victims of a political agenda of every president in power”, challenging a “delusion” presented in many media narratives.
So why continue relying on such misleading narratives? Dr Tahani Mustafa, Senior Palestine Analyst at the International Crisis Group, sparked concern for the charged nature of language used in describing global conflicts. She recounted a common misuse of language in the media discourse concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict, such as the repeated references to “Palestinian autonomy” and never “Palestinian self-determination”. This is perhaps reminiscent of the selectivity of language too, such as the words ‘massacre’, ‘atrocities’, and ‘slaughter’ being employed differently to ‘killed’ and ‘died’ when documenting tragedies, often to create an anti-Palestinian narrative.
Highlighting the need to change the Western perspective, Dr Mustafa addressed dominant international actors: “The international community in Western states have wrongfully taken the lessons of 7 October. Palestinians are losing more land, and the concept of politics is being sidelined.” This is also relevant to ordinary individuals, as many have wrongfully curated their understanding of conflicts by relying on media narratives, impacting their response to them.
Speaking to Jayyab Abusafia after the panel, he expanded on his disappointment towards the recent public solidarity movements, such as the pro-Palestinian protests in London throughout the first week of October. I was struck by his comment that, as a Gazan, it made him “more angry and depressed”. Despite supporting peaceful demonstrations and raising awareness of the war, Abusafia stated that activists lack the sensitivity of a first-hand perspective, showing solidarity without knowing what is happening. He further emphasised that “nothing is helping [him],” as both the public – including many activists – do not treat protests as an initiative to educate themselves, but rather as a “social event.” Indeed, there is a growing tendency to approach crises superficially and endorse ‘empty’ activism.
Regarding the importance of language used in journalism, Abusafia was blunt about the media steering away from the language of humanity, towards “technicality”. “We need stories … we are not monsters nor superheroes,” he said. Voices of first-hand perspectives counter apathetic media narratives, more realistically shaping information about ongoing crises.
Abusafia also criticised media pieces raising awareness of the conflict in Gaza. Commenting on Al-Jazeera’s 59-minute-long video displaying the names of the conflict’s recorded victims since 7 October 2023, he argued that such methods are dehumanising, portraying Palestinians as “just names”. He crucially left me a final remark: “People are trending.” It is not simply events ‘trending’ in the media, but tragically people too.
The panellists foregrounded the need to humanise an ongoing crisis, not reducing it to mere names, statistics, or policy proposals. Only in this way can the reality of what is happening in the world be presented. The media’s tone of detachment is a means of making people more accustomed to the insufficient actions taken to address global conflicts.
Nonetheless, when considering other ongoing crises, it is dangerously clear that many have become disengaged with or misinformed about them. To inform any action taken to hold political representatives to account, protest against the atrocities seen, or challenge complicity, there needs to be a multifaceted understanding of why an issue is salient. Attending student-led initiatives and events is a starting point, an accessible way to develop a more nuanced understanding of any crisis.
