Lessons from the Field: Supporting Communities Through Evacuation and Recovery

[Full recording available on YouTube - in Hebrew]

Learning from prior evacuation and recovery efforts

The webinar today (Mar 17, 2026) brought together practitioners and local leaders with direct experience supporting evacuated communities and residents affected by trauma, displacement, and prolonged emergency. It was geared toward NGOs in Bet Shemesh and other municipalities impacted by recent events. Just last night, Nehariya was hit, and since the beginning of the war with Iran, many communities have been affected.

The discussion was moderated by Daniel Goldman, Chairman of ICAR Collective and a resident of Bet Shemesh. It brought together Neri Shotan, CEO of the Kibbutz Movement Rehabilitation Fund; Yiftach Benbenishti, CEO of Mashabim; Bat Hen Karni, Director of Social Services at the Municipality of Rehovot; and Orit Dvash from Community Resources in the Social Services Department of the Municipality of Rehovot.

Across different settings and populations, several shared lessons emerged.

1. In the first days, people need far more than shelter

In the immediate aftermath of evacuation, people leave with almost nothing, into chaos, fear, and disorientation.

Bat Hen described how residents may arrive without basic necessities, requiring immediate support for food, clothing, medications, infant supplies, and safety—what she called “an immediate wrapping of protection.”

Orit suggested thinking about the response through three parallel tracks: physical, psychosocial, and informational.

This includes not only food and shelter, but also emotional support, identification of at-risk individuals, and access to clear, actionable information—rights, insurance, documentation, and services.

Emotional support does not necessarily mean formal therapy. In Rehovot, letters from children, cakes, and communal Shabbat activities helped people feel less alone in the first days.

Speakers emphasized that seemingly small issues (like missing IDs or credit cards) quickly become major barriers to functioning. After Oct 7, mobile units were deployed to issue new IDs so people could withdraw money and access basic services. What may sound technical is actually about autonomy:  “This allows people to be independent… to decide what to do with their lives.”

Restoring independence and the ability to make decisions became a recurring thread throughout the discussion.

2. Do not decide for people what they need

One of the strongest messages was simple: “do not tell people what they need, but always ask them.” 

If the goal is to restore autonomy, people must remain active participants in defining their own needs, even in crisis. Speakers also warned against over-helping for too long. In the first days, doing things for people may be necessary. But if it continues, it can undermine independence and create passivity.

Orit shared examples of people who could manage basic tasks but began asking others to do them. The issue is not the task itself, but the gradual erosion of agency. She also highlighted a structural lesson: welfare professionals should not carry the full operational burden of large response centers. When social-service staff are pulled into logistics, hotel placements, data management, and crowd control, they are diverted from their core mission.

Yiftach connected this to a deeper principle, recalling what Professor Mooli Lahad said on the night of October 7: “There will be people to take care of the logistics… we need to focus on meaning.”

Restoring meaning means restoring control, responsibility, and purpose.

But this is not only an individual process; it is shaped by the systems and authorities people rely on in moments of crisis.

3. Trust, stability, and clear information are core needs

If people are trying to regain a sense of control, institutions—especially local authorities—play a critical role in either reinforcing or undermining that process.

One of the first tasks is to create stability within chaos through listening, simple explanations, and clear communication. The message should not be false reassurance, but rather: “This is what happened. There is a degree of chaos. This is where we stand.”

Reliable information builds trust—and trust becomes the foundation for recovery.

When institutions fail to meet expectations, the damage is not only practical but psychological. People may experience what is sometimes referred to as moral injury: a deep sense of betrayal when systems or leaders fail to provide expected care or responsibility.

Information itself is an intervention. Making rights, processes, and contacts accessible is critical when people cannot navigate systems on their own.

But to provide clear information and build trust at scale, municipalities first need a reliable, shared understanding of what is actually happening on the ground.

4. You cannot manage what you cannot see

Effective response depends on a clear, real-time, shared picture of what is happening on the ground.

In Rehovot, an accurate, continuously updated map of affected buildings and apartments became foundational for decisions about evacuation, compensation, rent support, and donor targeting. Without this visibility, even well-intentioned efforts become fragmented.

Technology can help create this real-time visibility. Over time, structured data enables better segmentation, helping identify which populations are at higher risk and allowing for more tailored interventions.

Rehovot’s experience also showed that displacement often lasts far longer than initial timelines; weeks or months rather than days. In that reality, investing early in shared data infrastructure is not a luxury, but a foundation for both immediate coordination and sustained response.

But data alone does not create alignment: it depends on how it is used, and who is responsible for acting on it.

5. The municipality must lead and civil society must align

This is where the role of the municipality becomes especially consequential: directing services where they are most needed and shaping, in real time, whether trust is built or eroded.

There was broad agreement that the local authority must remain the primary lead.

At the same time, in the early phase, the municipality itself is in chaos and needs time to organize internally before it can effectively lead others.

Rehovot described a surge of organizations and volunteers offering help. While valuable, this can quickly create confusion without coordination.

Civil society should fill gaps and not replace the municipal structure. A central coordinating function is needed to map who is doing what and where needs remain unmet.

Without coordination, one family may receive multiple layers of support while another is missed entirely.

Neri described working directly with local leadership and helping only where needed. He emphasized the importance of operating without ego:  “we don’t even need our logo to appear there.”

6. Local leadership must be protected and supported

If trust in systems is central, then the people who embody those systems locally are critical.

External actors come and go, but local leaders remain—while also carrying the burden of the crisis themselves.

In many cases, leadership teams did not remain intact over time. Some were lost, others broke under the weight:  “It is a very heavy journey to carry on one’s shoulders.”

This creates two priorities: supporting existing leadership and identifying emerging “natural leaders” within the community—those who take responsibility and help others orient themselves.

7. Mental health needs are broad and not only clinical

Autonomy, trust, leadership, and coordination all shape how people cope psychologically.

In the short term, communities are already experiencing increased anxiety, behavioral changes, and distress; and well beyond directly affected populations.

Avraham Kapp from Ezer Achim raised a concern about rising distress among residents, including people with disabilities and families already under strain, and asked where communities can turn when psychiatric services are insufficient.

The panel emphasized that not all distress requires psychiatric care, and not all responses must be clinical.

Many people will experience anxiety, sleep disruption, and difficulty functioning in the short term and for most, these reactions improve over time.

At the same time, communities need practical tools, clear referral pathways, and ways to strengthen local coping.

Rehovot’s response provides one model. The municipality opened targeted support groups for different populations and began building broader resilience infrastructure (“Ognim”)—a network of “Resilience Trustees” from departments, neighborhoods, and communities who identify needs, map vulnerable residents, and serve as local anchors.

The broader lesson is that during a crisis, we cannot rely only on formal systems; sometimes we must build layered, local resilience structures.

Conclusion

Effective response requires addressing physical, emotional, and informational needs simultaneously, while maintaining strong local leadership and coordinated, ego-free collaboration.

People need support but also their sense of control.

The call to action was simple: do not reinvent the wheel. Learn from what has already been done and ask for support from those who have been through it. All speakers generously offered to keep dialogue open.