Over the past year, SNS has been working with the Local Government Association delivering training in how to create brave and safe spaces for discussions around Israel-Palestine. 

We were pleased to be featured recently as a case study for their members in their ‘Guide to disinformation affecting local authorities and their communities’. Please see the article below, which provides some insights into our experiences and the lessons learned. 

These have resulted in strengthened relationships, deeper organisational team spirit and resilience, and increased bookings in schools and community groups overall. 
 

Case 9: How an education charity responded to targeted misinformation campaigns to protect its reputation
 

Action

Solutions Not Sides is a UK-based educational charity that delivers workshops on Israel-Palestine in British secondary schools. The charity helps pupils develop the skills to think critically about the conflict through workshops that promote open dialogue, empathy, and active citizenship. The central part of the sessions is giving young people the chance to hear directly from Palestinian and Israeli peace-builders. Students are encouraged to engage critically, ask difficult questions, and consider a range of perspectives and possible solutions.

The charity has been subjected to multiple misinformation campaigns and public scrutiny from groups with opposing views of the conflict. Accusations of bias – including claims circulated via social media and private messaging apps – created reputational risks and led some schools to withdraw from the programme. 

Solutions Not Sides is founded on core values of non-violence, equality for all and the rejection of hate, all of which are embedded in its governing documents. The charity’s staff and trustees actively oppose antisemitism, Islamophobia, and all forms of racism, and work to promote social cohesion within communities.

Setting

The charity delivers its programme to over 10,000 pupils annually and has built strong relationships with schools across the country, with many repeat visits. However, rising tensions in the Middle East increased the risk of the organisation being misrepresented or criticised. 

In several cases, schools were contacted by campaigners who questioned the organisation’s neutrality. This sometimes took the form of local petitions, protests, or pressure on school leadership teams via parents, often using WhatsApp groups to organise. Some of these attacks targeted the charity’s staff directly, creating a welfare challenge for the organisation.

Actors and resources

The organisation found itself caught between accusations from both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian perspectives, with narratives often amplified online. The private and viral nature of messaging platforms made these accusations difficult to monitor or counter.

In response, the organisation worked with its board, advisors, and community leaders to carefully navigate the challenges. The organisation took a measured approach focused on de-escalation, addressing misinformation, and strengthening relationships with both Muslim and Jewish communities.

The charity leant on its pre-existing relationships to seek guidance on how to navigate challenges and as an opportunity to learn and grow as an organisation. It also mapped where it needed to work on its stakeholder engagement and set about a proactive approach including boosting its reputation on social media, in the press and with community groups. 

Staff who were personally targeted were supported with strategies to reduce their exposure and rebuild their reputations. All colleagues at the charity have access to free mental health support. 

Counteraction

The organisation took a more structured approach to communication following the attacks. It updated its website and developed new materials to support school leaders and parents in understanding its aims and values. A templated letter was offered to help headteachers explain the programme to their school communities.

It adapted its external-facing communications to pre-empt some of the attack lines, sharing information about its core values to get ahead of misinformation. 

Crucially, it focused on deepening relationships with school leaders and local figures who could act as trusted intermediaries. For example, in one area, a councillor brought together local residents and the charity for an open conversation. Although not all attendees changed their minds, many felt reassured about the programme’s approach and intent. 

Results

Despite the challenges, most schools continued to deliver the programme and shared positive feedback. A small number chose to withdraw – typically due to concerns about potential backlash rather than any issue with the content itself. Others not only continued but, in some cases, expanded their engagement with the charity. 

This was often supported by clear communication from SNS and the backing of trusted local figures, including councillors, governors, and community leaders. The experience highlighted the value of strong, long-term relationships with schools and communities, and the need for early, open engagement to build and maintain trust around sensitive topics.

Tips

• Invest early in relationships with communities. The strength of pre-existing relationships – particularly with headteachers, governors, councillors and community leaders – played a crucial role in determining whether schools continued with the programme when pressure arose.
• Equip school leaders with clear, shareable materials. Proactive communication tools such as template letters, FAQs and briefing notes helped school staff feel more confident in explaining the programme and responding to concerns.
• Respond carefully to misinformation. Not every claim warrants a direct rebuttal. In this case, maintaining a calm, consistent message and focusing on reinforcing trust proved more effective than amplifying false narratives.
• Strengthen internal resilience. Staff who were targeted benefited from practical advice to reduce their exposure and rebuild their reputations, alongside access to mental health support. Having these processes in place in advance is critical.
• Use trusted messengers. Local councillors, community figures, and school leaders often proved more effective than the charity itself in explaining the value and neutrality of the programme to concerned communities.
• Avoid information vacuums. Where silence was perceived, misinformation often filled the gap. Establishing early lines of communication with schools and local stakeholders can help prevent confusion before it takes hold.
• Tailor your approach to different audiences. WhatsApp, email newsletters, parent letters, and in-person briefings may all play a role. One-size-fits-all communications rarely cut through during tense moments.
   

Resources

SNS: Frequently Asked Questions

SNS: 2024 Response to Disinformation Campaigns

SNS: Responding to Misinformation Guide