A no man’s land – social work in ‘in-between’ conflict settings: Ethical challenges and dilemmas in Kufr Aqab

Abstract

In this article, we draw upon the context of Kufr Aqab – a ‘no-man’s land’ neither controlled by the Palestinian Authority nor Israel – to demonstrate the complex and multifaceted ethical dilemmas faced by social workers practising in ‘in-between’ conflict settings. Ethical challenges relate to social workers’ safety and security, as well as their capacity to deliver meaningful change. We argue that despite the challenging and often violent environments in which they work, social workers demonstrate important competencies to overcome these dilemmas by drawing upon and utilizing personal and community resources. We highlight calls to action for both social work practitioners and researchers.

Introduction

War, conflict and ongoing violence have enormous political, economic and social impacts on the people who experience them (Denov and Shevell, 2019; Devakumar et al., 2014). Populations in conflict settings may struggle with limited access to basic social services and experience long-term negative impacts on personal and community development (Newnham et al., 2018). As social workers who have practised in conflict settings such as Israel, Negev, Palestine, Kufr Aqab (KA), Libya, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Rwanda and northern Uganda, we have shared among ourselves the unique ethical challenges that have presented themselves while working in these contexts. In our work, we practise social work (SW) directly with communities in conflict settings, supervise, conduct research and/or work alongside local social workers and students. Social workers in these settings frequently contend with ethical dilemmas amid armed violence, conflict and the lack of personal and professional support, especially for local social workers.

As practising social workers, we seek to unpack the complexity of ethical dilemmas inherent to social work in conflict settings. Contextual factors such as structural violence and the nature of the conflict shape and inform these dilemmas. They differ in complexity across conflict settings and particularly in ‘in-between’ conflict settings, which are characterized by their ongoing, protracted nature. These ‘in-between’ conflict settings are not considered either ‘conflicts’ or ‘post-conflicts’, often leaving them ‘off the radar’ of international interventions and very often ineligible for external support and funding opportunities. As a result, local social workers may experience a lack of vital external support. We draw upon the setting of KA – a ‘no man’s land’ between Israel and Palestine – to describe the experiences and ethical challenges of social workers in an ‘in-between’ conflict setting. We emphasize the importance of quality systems of support and care for local social workers, to ensure practitioners are not made to rely solely on their own creative resources. At the same time, however, we seek to honour the ways in which these social workers draw upon their own creative resources to navigate these dilemmas despite a profound lack of external support. We make specific calls to action to show how support should carefully build upon the local social workers’ capacities, improve their resilience and ensure more sustainable support for affected communities, such as in the case of KA, which we introduce below.

Ethical challenges for social workers in conflict settings

Existing SW research has documented the impact of violent conflict on social workers and SW practices (Harrop and Ioakimidis, 2018; Ramon et al., 2006), describing the unique ethical challenges social workers face (Ramon et al., 2006; Semigina, 2019). Shahar (1993) highlighted the moral, ethical and emotional conflicts experienced by social workers in Israel during the Gulf War, such as balancing care for themselves and their family members with their responsibility to work. Similarly, Loewenberg (1992) highlighted examples of ethical dilemmas experienced by Israeli social workers during the Gulf War such as difficulties regarding work–family conflicts, questions about appropriate forms of SW practice and concerns about confidentiality. Social workers also often lack time to reflect on ethical dilemmas during war (Loewenberg, 1992). In his description of conflict management workshops for Jewish and Arab Palestinian groups, Bargal (1992) placed particular attention on the needs of the trainers (or workshop facilitators) to learn how to navigate the tensions between their own political perspectives and values with the profession’s focus on ‘tolerance, acceptance and positive regard’ (p. 63). Social workers may also experience tension in applying SW values to their practice in conflict settings (Ramon, 2008).

Analysis of research on the impact of conflict on social workers in Northern Ireland, Israel and Palestine also highlighted professional dilemmas related to prejudice and intergroup conflicts (Ramon et al., 2006). In Ukraine, social workers experienced ethical difficulties providing support to internally displaced persons who are on the opposite political side of the conflict (Semigina, 2019). Ethical tensions may be a source of profound distress for social workers. In conflict settings, practitioners must oftentimes ‘forgo compliance with core ethical commitments, choose to comply with one ethical obligation at the expense of another, or to take an action where no obvious right action exists’ (Johns Hopkins Center for Public Health and Human Rights [JHSP], International Rescue Committee [IRC] and Syrian American Medical Society, 2019: 3). Social workers in conflict settings must therefore navigate powerful ‘ethical minefields’ (Denov, 2010; Denov and Shevell, 2019) that require constant mitigation.

Supporting social workers to address these challenges may not only promote the well-being of the social workers themselves, but also, simultaneously, support the individuals, families and communities who are at great risk during times of conflict. Loewenberg (1992) presented guidelines for addressing the ethical dilemmas social workers faced based on discussions with Israeli social workers about their experiences during the Gulf War. He recommends that in times of war, ethical decisions should be made as a peer group and SW managers, professional organizations and SW educators should support social workers to engage in discussions about ethics before and after practising; and should also provide leadership to help social workers navigate the ethical dilemmas experienced during war (Loewenberg, 1992). That said, there is a need for more SW literature to address the complexities of SW practice, especially in contexts where, because of an ‘in-between’ conflict, there is a lack of formal systems and structures of support – both for the community and for the social worker. Furthermore, while the SW literature discusses structural violence (Mullaly, 2007), there is a need for more discussion on SW ethics and structural violence in conflict settings, particularly in ‘in-between’ conflict settings such as KA.

A ‘no man’s land’ in an ongoing conflict: History and context of KA

We live here just to wait – Jihad Hadross. (Ashly, 2018)

Palestinians who live in the Occupied Palestinians Territories (OPT) have been deeply affected by the prolonged political conflict coupled with structural violence (Ho, 2007), which has led to vast displacement, dispossession, economic deprivation as well as the militarization of their communities and daily lives (Kuttab and Heilman, 2017). Since 1967, Israel has been applying different tools of structural violence to expand and maintain its power and domination by diminishing Palestinian rights as individuals and as a collective – exerting exceptional laws and restrictive policies that severely curtail the rights of Palestinians and legally legitimizing the denial of basic human rights (Starzmann, 2010). One of the structural tools identified by Halper (2000) is Israel’s ‘matrix of control’. The matrix of control includes construction of the separation wall within the West Bank, preventing Palestinians from entering Israel to work or visit family (Shalhoub-Kevorkian, 2015), the creation of hundreds of military checkpoints, and a complicated permit system that shrinks mobility and complicates access and entry into Israel. In addition, the matrix of control includes the expansion of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land, the doling out of differentiated identification cards and travel permits, alongside restrictive policies of land ownership and residency registration (Glass and Khamaisi, 2005).

One of the Palestinian towns that has been deeply affected by this matrix of control is KA. What differentiates KA from other Palestinian towns such as Ramallah is the fact that it was annexed by Israel in 1967 and now formally sits within the Israeli municipality of Jerusalem, rather than the Palestinian Authority (PA). Through this annexation, the Israeli authorities granted ‘permanent residency’ (PR) status to 66,000 Jerusalemites who were physically present in East Jerusalem at the time. Residents who were not present at that time lost their right to reside in Jerusalem (Hammoudeh et al., 2016). PR status offers greater freedom of movement, the right to live and work in Israel, as well as entitlements to social and health care provided by the Israeli National Insurance Institute. However, Palestinian PRs who live in KA do not have citizenship rights and are constantly under threat of revocation of their PR status. To minimize the number of Palestinians in Jerusalem, the Israeli authorities have employed a restricted PR regime through the establishment of the ‘center of life’ policy, which requires Palestinian PRs to constantly prove that they are living within Jerusalem’s municipal boundaries, which is monitored closely by the authorities (Hammoudeh et al., 2016). Since 1967, it is estimated that 14,200 PRs have had their status revoked. Community fear of the revocation of the PR status forces PRs to remain in Jerusalem.

There are several mechanisms employed to maintain their control through implicit and explicit forms of structural violence, making KA what it is today. For example, the 2002 construction of the separation wall separated KA from the rest of East Jerusalem, and KA became accessible through only a series of checkpoints that require Israeli approval for entry. In 2003, Israel modified the Nationality Law which prohibited Palestinians with PR, who are married to Palestinians from the West Bank or Gaza, from applying for family unification. As a result, many PRs cannot live legally with their families in Jerusalem. This forces them into areas that allow them to maintain their residency requirement while living with their families. Due to its location and legal status, KA has become one such place.

Cut off from the rest of Jerusalem by Israel’s separation wall, the densely populated 5 km² area suffers from severe neglect. The population in KA has grown, from 18,000 in 2002 to 80,000 in 2019 (Abu Hatoum, 2020). Despite such a significant population increase, there is no actual governance or accountability in KA. The Jerusalem municipality deprives KA residents of basic services, including education, health, waste removal and road maintenance. Moreover, police are absent, and the residents receive only 2 days of running water per week, despite paying municipal and other taxes. Importantly, Israeli authorities only enter KA when there is believed to be a security threat to Israel – in which case the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) or police would enter.

KA has thus come to be known as a ‘no man’s land’. It is characterized by overcrowding, poor infrastructure, dismal social services, high rates of crime, violence, poverty as well as high and long-term unemployment rates. Unemployment was at 30.9 percent in 2018 (Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics [PCBS], 2018). In addition, residents must contend with multiple and profound life-stressors, including restricted mobility, anxiety resulting from legal and administrative battles to maintain residency, the distress of having to relocate to areas with poorer living conditions, and feelings of mistrust and community fragmentation. In their effort to ensure that people maintain their ‘centre of life’ in Jerusalem, Israel employs individuals within KA to inform on others. This creates major distrust and fear of others, undermining any sense of community (Alkhalili et al., 2014).

Through Israeli practices of occupation, structural violence, and bypassing of the standards of international law and human rights, oppression has become embedded in the everyday lives of Palestinians in KA. Despite the media attention KA receives, referring to it as a ‘phenomenon’ (Zuhour, 2020), KA receives little attention from humanitarian actors and organizations, making SW practice in KA particularly challenging.

SW practice in KA

While every conflict setting is unique, KA is a particularly complicated setting for social workers as a consequence of ongoing structural and protracted violence, a lack of external support and never formally becoming a ‘post-conflict’ setting. As in other settings, in KA, the structural violence is embedded and entrenched, and in many ways invisible (Taylor, 2013). This makes it difficult for social workers to formally address the social problems and to promote policy. Furthermore, KA receives little outside attention from governments and international humanitarian agencies given that it is not at the beginning of a large-scale emergency where severe humanitarian needs such as food and housing might be more apparent. In addition, programmes in KA are often ineligible for funding because they do not meet the donor’s criteria for either a developing country, a conflict setting or a post-conflict setting (Harrop and Ioakimidis, 2018). As a result, social workers in KA are often left alone and receive little external support from international donors. The social workers in KA are responsible for addressing community members’ issues alongside the many ethical dilemmas arising through their SW practice.

Social workers operating in KA may originate from Israel, Palestine or East Jerusalem. These social workers may have studied SW at universities in Israel, abroad or in Palestine. For the social workers who originate from Palestine, SW is an emerging profession. However, social workers play a significant role in the promotion of Palestinians’ wellbeing and Palestine’s overall development (Al-Kilani, 2019). SW in Palestine is influenced by the ongoing Israeli occupation, the intervention of international organizations operating in Palestine in cooperation with Palestinian non-governmental organizations (PNGOs) (Lindsay, 2007) and the absence of a functioning social service system in the emerging state (Al-Kilani, 2019). Overall, the social workers in KA can belong to either the Palestinian Union of Social Workers and Psychologists (PUSWP) or the Israeli Union of Social Workers (IUSW) and operate using different codes of conduct. The social workers who are from East Jerusalem and are residents of East Jerusalem are supposed to be under IUSW’s code of conduct. This diversity of social workers and their backgrounds adds to the complexity of navigating SW ethics in this ‘in-between’ conflict setting.

Social workers in KA work with residents holding multiple citizenship statuses and as such, they must hold expertise in three legal and social welfare systems: the Israeli system, the Palestinian system and the system for East Jerusalem residents. The lack of a police force in KA creates further difficulties for SW practice and influences the feelings of insecurity among the community and the social workers. For example, if there is a violent altercation in KA, the Palestinian police cannot intervene, and the Israeli police will not cross the checkpoint.

Social workers must also navigate the varied and complex Israeli and Palestinian social welfare systems. The Israeli system can be considered as ‘advanced’ in comparison with the Palestinian one, which exists within an emerging state, ultimately influencing the availability of services for referrals. Social workers can choose to refer clients to the Israeli or Palestinian social welfare systems based on the client’s legal standing. Importantly, the Israeli and Palestinian state and NGO services do not extend to KA because KA residents are not citizens of Palestine and are under the authority of Israel. If KA residents require assistance from the Israeli social welfare system, they must cross the physical checkpoint at Qalandia, which takes time, money and risk of confrontation with the IDF. The complexities among the social workers themselves, the political structure, and the societal structure influence SW practice and ethics, generating multidimensional ethical dilemmas and personal anguish for local social workers.

Drawing upon real-life examples and the direct experiences of the first author, who has practised extensively in Israel, Palestine and KA, we highlight two key ethical issues and multifaceted ethical dilemmas arising for social workers in KA. These dilemmas involve social workers’ (1) safety and security, and (2) the capacity to deliver meaningful change.

Safety and security: tensions in legal and professional obligations

‘Sabra’ (not her real name) is a Palestinian Israeli (Palestinian citizen of Israel) social worker who was hired by a local Palestinian NGO in KA. Sabra is a member of the IUSW and was trained at an Israeli university. The social workers who work under the IUSW are not legally allowed to enter KA as Israelis because this would require them to pass through the Qalandia checkpoint, which is prohibited by Israeli law. According to the Israeli authorities, KA and areas beyond the separation wall are not safe for Israeli citizens. As a Palestinian Israeli, Sabra is highly aware of the risks involved, yet she decided to work in KA. She stated that because Israel is an occupying power, she decided to align herself with the people under occupation, relying on her professional and moral obligations to promote justice and well-being. In Sabra’s words ‘my moral obligations and professional commitments to human rights don’t end at the Qalandia checkpoint’.

Sabra’s decision to work in KA has multiple legal and safety implications. First, entering KA has legal ramifications, including the possibility of criminal charges. Second, she could lose her status as a social worker within the IUSW and compromise her job security. Sabra must cross a checkpoint to travel to and from work. At any time, checkpoints can close, or violence can erupt. If violence erupts, Sabra is not always able to return home, and she must remain in KA. Although the NGO Sabra works for had outlined the risks to her, Sabra insists that she is committed to continue her work in KA. To protect Sabra during violent eruptions and checkpoint closures, the NGO director created a community-based protection strategy. The director recruited four families in KA that could serve as host families for Sabra, thereby providing physical and social support to her when she is unable to return to East Jerusalem. Sabra is often forced to utilize this protection, at least once per month.

Discussion

Sabra’s case highlights the tensions between the social worker’s legal and professional obligations, as well as the risk to her personal safety. Researchers have suggested that social workers operating in conflict settings may be confronted by laws and policies that are ethically unacceptable (Banks and Nøhr, 2013). Sabra’s case is complex; first as the law in question is one imposed by Israel, whose remit is enforced in KA. Second, the IUSW code of conduct Sabra must follow is driven by tools of structural violence. Sabra is trapped between two structures of power that are violating her right to promote social justice – Israeli law and the IUSW. Instead of protecting Sabra’s rights as member social worker, the IUSW has aligned itself with the Israeli law, serving the interests of the state at the expense of the social worker.

Despite conflicting legal obligations, Sabra chose to follow her political commitments, and ethical and moral obligations over her legal obligations. To navigate this complexity with the IUSW, Sabra aligned herself with the global SW profession. Sabra’s ethical justification for working within KA stems from her obligations to the promotion of human rights and justice, outlined in the International Federation of Social Workers’(IFSW) Statement of Ethical Principles for social workers where human rights, dignity and social justice are fundamental principles (International Association of Schools of Social Work [IASSW] and International Federation of Social Workers [IFSW], 2018). Sabra’s case highlights the tensions between IFSW and IUSW when dealing with SW under occupation in conflict settings, which received little attention from IFSW until 2017. Following the killing of Abu Maria Hashem, who was a Palestinian social worker and board member in the PUSWP, IFSW quickly circulated a statement condemning the killing of a social worker by the Israeli Army. It is only then that IFSW took a clear stance on the Palestinian issue stating that the right for self-determination of all people and the liberation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories are a precondition for achieving peace in the Middle East (IFSW, 2014; Truell, 2014). This demonstrates the important role of international SW bodies to foster support for local social workers.

In a censure letter sent to the IUSW in March 2018, the IFSW challenged the IUSW position, stating that social workers work towards peace, and when it is safe to do so, they have a duty to advocate for the rights of all peoples, which Sabra drew upon to advocate for her position (IFSW, 2018). (The censure was issued to the IUSW for not acting as an independent voice of the profession in Israel following discussions where the IUSW stated that the solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict was not an SW issue.) Sabra’s decision to work in KA, in and of itself, counters the established policy of the IUSW. Sabra’s alignment with the global SW profession’s principles provided her with a source of power and legitimacy, challenging the legitimacy of the IUSW’s code of conduct and the Israeli legal structure. This example shows Sabra’s ability to align herself with the SW profession’s global body to help her navigate the difficulties with the IUSW.

Sabra also compromised her personal safety. Challenges with transportation and security have been reported by other Palestinian social workers (Harrop and Ioakimidis, 2018). Yet, organizations have a duty of care towards their staff members. The Sphere Association (2018) outline the application of the duty of care, stating:

Policies are in place for the security and the well-being of staff. Agencies exercise a duty of care to their workers. Managers make humanitarian workers aware of risks and protect them from exposure to unnecessary threats to their physical and emotional health. Measures that can be adopted include effective security management, preventative health advice, active support for working reasonable hours and access to psychological support. (p. 78)

However, some local NGOs may experience challenges to effectively support the safety and security of staff due to fewer available resources such as communications equipment and vehicles, security training or procedures, and access to government protection or insurance when a security incident occurs (Geoffroy and Grunewald, 2017). However, this case demonstrates that material resources should not limit organizations’ ability to promote their staff’s safety. Sabra’s organization actively mobilized the community and drew upon existing resources to provide safety for their staff. Since these resources reflect community culture and give voice to community members they are thus likely to be sustainable and provide meaning.

Calls to action

This case study illuminates three calls to action: (1) where possible, social workers in conflict settings should get permission so they can travel and cross borders or checkpoints safely and legally; (2) to address tensions related to legal and professional responsibilities, global SW bodies such as the IFSW should continue to advocate for social workers in conflict settings to navigate ethical dilemmas where the social worker’s moral obligations conflict with the local SW organization’s code of conduct. Social workers who violate local codes of conduct can then pursue the ethical dilemma with the IFSW. (3) Community organizations and local SW organizations should draw upon community resources such as a community safety net to provide support and safety for social workers. This can also build upon important existing community strengths, as well as develop relationships of trust between social workers and the communities within which they work.

Social workers’ capacity to deliver meaningful change: trapping or advocating for communities?

Case description

‘J-K’ is a local community NGO, established in 2000 by a local KA social worker. J-K focuses on the empowerment of marginalized residents who suffer from broad infringements of social, economic, cultural and political rights, as well as organizing to change the policies of Israeli occupation that have led to displacement, poverty and marginalization.

Since J-K’s establishment, Palestinian social workers realized that political structures produce and reproduce unequal distribution of power which generate suffering, marginality of individuals and social groups living in KA. They also learned that to fight marginality and structural violence they must make use of critical SW approaches such as the rights-based community practice (RBCP) (Torczyner, 2020). J-K’s social workers realized their work is highly dependent on their ability to influence political structures in both Israel and the PA. For the past decade, J-K focused on raising awareness about fundamental human rights and mobilizing people to take political action to change policies and claim their rights. In doing so, J-K challenged the paradigm of providing humanitarian aid, a ‘band-aid’ solution, and shifted their work towards advocacy and policy change. J-K used this RBCP approach to advocate against exclusion and discriminatory practices, such as the lack of basic services in KA, mobility restrictions, and the Citizenship Law and Nation-State Law, which prevent Palestinian families from living together in Israel. Despite J-K’s rights awareness and advocacy efforts, these initiatives did not result in policy changes.

By advocating for structural change, J-K’s social workers created community expectations for meaningful and long-term change. However, the lack of change and tangible results led to a loss of trust with some community members. One social worker shared her dilemma saying:

I feel that I am lying to the people . . . I know that neither Israel nor PA is going to provide them services . . . my work is causing more harm than benefits. A woman shouted at me saying: ‘why did you tell me about these rights when you know that there is no chance for me to get them . . . I wish I didn’t know this information . . . my life was simpler before . . . you just added salt to my wounds’.

This quote demonstrates that in ‘in-between’ conflict settings, social workers experience a tension when advocating for human rights, as contextual factors such as the absence of clear governance or accountability in KA may make it difficult to actualize these rights, creating a possible risk of raising expectations and doing harm.

Discussion

This example shows how social workers may be torn between providing immediate needs for people and their commitment towards advocating for longer-term structural change. This is an ethical dilemma for social workers as their work is shaped and constrained by the context and/or structural conditions, grating against their commitment to long-term solutions. The tension between providing services to marginalized groups and organizing these groups for advocacy to challenge the existing power structure is a fundamental dilemma for social workers globally (Elsana, 2021; Hasenfeld and Garrow, 2012). Yet, this tension manifests differently in ‘in-between’ conflict settings due to the absence of formal services and structures.

It is crucial for social workers to acknowledge the role of social structures in producing and maintaining inequality and personal hardship (Lundy, 2011; Mullaly, 2007). However, in the context of KA, efforts to change these structures not only fail to bring about structural change but these advocacy efforts utilize social workers’ already limited resources for a process that may cause harm. This harm can result from practical barriers in the context that prevents successful advocacy efforts. For example, often, residents cannot cross military checkpoints into Israel, where political advocacy may be possible, because it poses a risk to their families’ lives. One challenging aspect of structural violence is its invisibility (Farmer, 1996). In the case of KA, the absence of institutions to provide services, the lack of a state to guarantee residents’ rights and the ambiguity of who can be held accountable make advocacy work ineffective and even harmful. Raising awareness raises people’s expectations and creates the illusion that rights can be practised.

To resolve this dilemma, J-K’s social workers combined service and advocacy into one approach. Raising awareness about rights and entitlements is an essential step towards actualizing such rights (Elsana, 2021). J-K’s social workers raised awareness about the rights and services KA residents are entitled to. This process encouraged community members to create the necessary services. For example, in J-K, social workers created a Muntadah Alkher (kindness forum), where community members donate US$5 a month. Each month, community members allocate the money towards one service such as renovations, hot lunches for children or after-school programmes. Through this group, community members also collect clothes, kitchenware and furniture. Community members involved in Muntadah Alkher fix and clean these items as needed so they can distribute them back to the community. While this does not address the overall lack of policy and formal services, Muntadah Alkher provides a locally meaningful and empowering approach to address local needs. This case example also demonstrates social workers’ competencies to address immediate needs and long-term social change in KA. While combining service and advocacy has challenges, it is important because it does not treat the community members as only passive recipients of services, but it ensures the community members play an active role in addressing the needs of their community (Al-Kilani, 2019; Elsana, 2021).

Studies suggest that structural SW approaches such as advocacy and political activism to promote human rights and social justice should complement micro SW approaches in conflict settings (Al-Kilani, 2019; Elsana, 2021). In such contexts, social workers should be active in the political process and not limit their work to development projects (Mmatli, 2008). By pursuing both aims, social workers can maintain and build upon the community’s trust. Furthermore, Elsana (2021) advocates for an integrative approach where advocacy work is embedded in service provision. Advocacy becomes a method to empower community members to consider their role in creating necessary services and accessing their rights. This promotes community ownership, culturally relevant approaches, solidarity and hope.

Combining service provision and advocacy resonates with grassroots SW practice. Integrating micro and macro SW by involving the community in service creation is an innovative and resourceful SW practice, particularly relevant for ‘in-between’ conflict settings where formal services do not exist.

Calls to action

The case example of J-K brings forth three calls to action: (1) social workers practising in conflict settings should be encouraged to combine service provision and advocacy activities to address both tangible needs and structural barriers; (2) external actors should support social workers to advocate with donors to understand that these community-based initiatives require time and long-term funding (e.g. 5 years). It is essential to advocate for long-term funding that will enable local social workers to create processes of empowerment, ownership and solidarity among the community. (3) SW education should teach SW students that micro and structural approaches can be complementary, strengthening the organic link existing between micro and macro SW.

A final call to action

To improve support for local social workers in ‘in-between’ conflict settings, we suggest one final call to action. As demonstrated through the case studies above, social workers in ‘in-between’ conflict settings like KA draw upon their tenacity and resilience to respond to, manage and navigate their way around difficult ethical dilemmas. Social workers’ abilities to navigate through these ethical dilemmas in isolation and without adequate support are a testament to their creativity and competencies. However, their best efforts are continually undermined by the context itself. We call upon the international community, specifically international SW bodies, to pay more attention to these ‘in-between’ contexts and offer quality support to social workers where needed. We argue that international organizations and actors should carefully and directly support practitioners who are supporting affected communities in complex and insecure settings, rife with structural violence and oppression. For example, international SW bodies should continually undertake assessment and mapping exercises to identify ‘in-between’ conflict settings where support for those performing SW functions would be beneficial. In addition, it is critical to establish areas of priority for practice – which would be unique to each setting, and ideally done in collaboration with affected families and communities. However, establishing priorities of practice is essential to ensure both the security and well-being of populations, as well as the social workers that serve them.

Conclusion

As practising social workers seeking support and ‘answers’, there has been limited information and guidance available in the existing SW literature that seeks to actively and frankly address and unpack the complexity of – and ethical dilemmas inherent to – SW in conflict settings. This article has sought to bring to light some of the real-life challenges that social workers struggle with daily. What becomes clear is that in the absence of structural and professional support, social workers like Sabra, and organizations like J-K, are often left to their own devices to solve highly complex problems – sometimes in anguished isolation. The cases show that social workers who practise in conflict settings may lack local, organizational, and governmental support and are placed in situations that challenge their legal and professional obligations, even compelling them to break the law and put their personal security at risk for the benefit of their clients. All of this is in addition to the backdrop of a conflict setting whereby violence, oppression, uncertainty, and instability frame and shape all forms of decision-making.

Of course, KA is not the only context where the complexities of protracted conflict and ‘in-between conflict settings’ are imperative to explore and address. At the time of writing, thousands of children and families are contending with protracted violence and oppression in Afghanistan. UNICEF has estimated that 10 million Afghan children require humanitarian assistance to survive, with approximately 435,000 women and children facing internal displacement (UNICEF, 2021). In Northwest Syria, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs [OCHA], United Nations, 2021) estimates that 2.7 million persons are displaced. The ongoing conflict, pandemic, economic decline, winter conditions and flooding impact persons who are displaced (OCHA, 2021). OCHA (2021) observed heightened vulnerabilities among displaced persons who report loss of tents due to flooding and protection concerns such as family separation. However, ongoing fighting negatively impacts the implementation of protection activities (OCHA, 2021).

In such complex and volatile settings, as noted earlier, social workers face profound challenges as to who, what and where to prioritize. In settings of protracted violence, the responsibility of researchers and practitioners to act ethically is greater, but mechanisms for oversight weaker (Zwi et al., 2006). It is without a doubt that social workers within conflict settings require improved and ongoing supervision and training of how to manage dilemmas to find solutions for their complex practice that reflect the cultural, political and social contexts in which they live and work. There is a need to empower the social workers themselves, for them not just to be treated as subjects, but as deeply implicated within the process and broader context, especially given their clear commitment to local individuals, families and communities.

Our analysis has underscored that social workers working in these contexts are key and vital resources – they possess local knowledge and understanding of the affected communities, its culture and traditions, as well as their ability to innovate, even under conditions of violence and duress. Research has suggested that the social workers’ own experiences of the conflict may promote their ability to provide successful care for those directly affected by the war/conflict. Itzhaky and Dekel’s (2005) study of social workers in Israel identified that the greater the social worker’s exposure to terrorism, the more growth and less distress their clients reported. This finding suggests social workers exposed to terrorist attacks may be more empathetic towards their clients, increasing positive treatment outcomes. This finding also suggests that social workers can model successful coping strategies for their clients to draw upon (Itzhaky and Dekel, 2005). In the West Bank and Gaza, interviews with social workers and psychosocial workers revealed ‘resourcefulness and commitment’ and the ‘common experience appeared to lead to feelings of collective solidarity in which survival becomes a form of resistance’ (Lindsay, 2007: 137). These are critical resources and abilities social workers draw upon to navigate the ethical complexities they experience in their practice. These realities ultimately show the resilience and capacity of social workers to respond to often dire situations with compassion and competence.