This article was originally published by The Times of Israel Blogs on July 2, 2025, at [https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-abandonment-of-jewish-therapists-antisemitism-in-the-mental-health-field/]. All rights remain with the original author and publisher.

The horrors of October 7, 2023, will forever be ingrained in our memories as one of the darkest, most horrific days in modern Jewish history—and the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust. Nearly 1,200 Jewish and Israeli civilians of all ages—including more than 200 foreigners and dual nationals—were brutally murdered, while many others were tortured, raped, taken hostage in their homes, and forced to witness unspeakable acts of violence committed against loved ones. 

These atrocities, including the abduction of 251 individuals—more than half of whom held passports from 25 countries and were paraded alive through the streets of Gaza to roaring, celebratory cheers of onlookers—shattered the very foundation of the slogan, “Never Again.” 

While Israelis were still grappling with the immediate on-the-ground trauma and aftermath of October 7, the global Jewish community was once again confronted with the weight of historical trauma—particularly as the full scope of the atrocities became clearer through videos recorded by members of Hamas. This collective pain was further intensified by a 388% surge in antisemitic incidents in the two weeks following the attack—compared to the same period the previous year—and persistently elevated rates in the time since.

Hamas, the Islamist military group responsible for the October 7 attack, is known for its history of using human shields, its placement of rocket launch sites and weapon storage in civilian areas—including schools, mosques, and medical centers—and its waging of psychological warfare. Hamas is also known for its intricate underground tunnel system constructed within civilian areas, with tunnels having been discovered beneath several hospitals—including the European Hospital, the Turkish-Palestinian Friendship Hospital, and the Al-Shifa Hospital—as well as United Nations Facilities such as schools operated by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). 

Notably, Hamas’ reach has extended into UNRWA and its staff—a number of whom have been found to have participated in the October 7 atrocities and kidnappings, as evidenced by recordings and reports. Hamas’ reach and anti-Israel propaganda have also extended to universities, college campuses, and academia at large—often propagated by the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which has gained significant influence in academic settings. With anti-Israel sentiment permeating academia, it was perhaps only a matter of time before such sentiments reached allied mental health professions under the veil of engaging in social justice.

What we are witnessing across allied mental health professions is a growing number of therapists abandoning the core tenets and principles of their respective professions (e.g., promoting the well-being of clients and the larger society, avoiding harm to others, and respecting the rights and dignity of all people) while simultaneously acting in contradiction to their professional codes of ethics. In fact, some mental health providers and faculty within graduate-level mental health training programs have openly engaged in discriminatory and targeted practices, while also spreading biased and factually incorrect information that aligns with false narratives of apartheid, genocide, oppression, and colonialism—thus imposing their values and beliefs on clients, colleagues, and students, both in clinical and educational settings.

The failure of some mental health professionals to adhere to their respective ethical codes calls into question their commitment to the foundational values of the profession. Across counseling, psychology, and social work, ethical codes uniformly emphasize the importance of respecting cultural, religious, and individual differences; avoiding the imposition of personal beliefs; and managing conflicts between personal and professional values. Breaches of these ethical principles and standards can, in turn, significantly undermine public trust in the mental health field and lead to ruptures in existing therapeutic relationships—thereby placing Jewish clients at risk when seeking the safe, supportive spaces otherwise assured to them.

Not only have Jewish clients shared their harmful experiences with their therapists since October 7, but Jewish mental health professionals have also faced hostile and antisemitic professional environments. Reported examples include being blacklisted for “Zionist affiliations,” attending conferences where presenters equated Zionism with fascism and a “colonized mind,” experiencing academic boycotts, and being uninvited from conferences for merely being Jewish or Israeli. 

As a result, Jewish therapists who regularly seek professional support, continuing education, and networking opportunities through their respective professional associations increasingly feel they no longer have a place of belonging within such spaces. This sentiment has become significantly more salient during the past year, as several mental health associations have adopted problematic stances—such as the American Counseling Association urging “leaders on both sides of this war to take immediate steps to end the violence and work toward sustainable peace and collective healing,” while disregarding Hamas’ designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

Equally troubling is the traumatic invalidation of Jewish experiences and distress since October 7, exemplified by the American Psychological Association’s call for an “Immediate, Permanent, and Comprehensive Ceasefire,” which blatantly ignores the fact that 50 hostages remain captive in Gaza—including two American citizens with dual U.S.-Israeli citizenship who have been killed and whose bodies have not been returned. Also overlooked are the brutal killings of hostages—including American citizens—the murder of a mother and her four-year-old son and nine-month-old baby, as well as testimony and evidence of torture, sexual abuse, sunlight deprivation, starvation, chaining, and caging of hostages. 

Sadly, outrage among allied mental health professionals has been limited. There has also been no acknowledgment of Gazans who have protested Hamas’ rule—protests met with torture and executions carried out by Hamas. Instead, within the field of psychology—which has been experiencing a surge of antisemitism—a statement from one Ethnic Psychological Association of the American Psychological Association (APA) referred to the October 7 atrocities as a “unified Palestinian resistance action.” Similarly, another APA-affiliated Ethnic Psychological Association issued a statement likening Israel’s response to October 7 to historical instances of “colonization, oppression, and violence” by means of “war, genocide, and its complexities,” which include comparisons to the Vietnam War, the Khmer Rouge, the Korean War, the Partition of India and Pakistan, and the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Additionally, numerous APA divisions and division leaders, along with international psychological organizations, have selectively called for ceasefires—issuing statements titled “Psychologists’ Response to the Violence in Gaza” or positioned as “supporting peace and protection of human dignity.” Yet many of these statements neglect to acknowledge the atrocities of October 7 or the hostages still in captivity, and in some cases, frame October 7 within the context of a century-long “asymmetrical conflict.” Some leaders from APA divisions have gone so far as to claim that denouncing Zionism is not antisemitic; rather, they argue that “Zionist ideology” is merely “one source of antisemitism.”

Antisemitism within the APA has been well-documented, prompting the filing of a formal complaint as well as ongoing media coverage and widespread recognition of anti-Jewish bias within the association and many of its divisions and listservs. In fact, calls to action have been issued by U.S. Congressman Ritchie Torres, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), and the Academic Engagement Network (AEN) in direct response to the APA’s ongoing failure to meaningfully address antisemitism.

Similarly, within the field of counselor education, presenters at the American Counseling Association’s (ACA) 2024 Conference & Expo received anonymous emails—also circulated on the Counselor Education and Supervision Network Listserv (CESNET-L)—urging them to withdraw their presentation in protest of the ACA’s “fail[ure] to publicly condemn the violence unfolding in Palestine.” 

In tandem with the APA, at least two state counseling associations and one division of the ACA have issued statements. One state counseling association acknowledged the hostages but made no mention of the need for their release. The second state association omitted any reference to the 251 hostages—ranging in age from 15 months to 86 years. 

While the ACA division briefly referenced the hostages—solely indicating that “over 100 hostages” were taken—it characterized Israel’s response to the October 7 massacre as involving “severe violations of human rights and international law,” describing it as a “genocide” and urging news consumption from groups such as Jewish Voice for Peace and the Palestinian Youth Movement—without offering more balanced or diverse perspectives.

Within the field of social work, the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) issued a formal censure against the Israeli Union of Social Workers for not “upholding the Federation’s ethical principles of supporting peace and non-violence” or opposing military conscription of social workers. This censure, issued without reference to the atrocities of October 7 or the ongoing trauma experienced by Israelis—reflects a broader trend in allied mental health fields: institutional double standards and silence on antisemitism; targeted attacks against the Israeli and Jewish communities; selective condemnation of Jewish and Israeli institutions; erasure of Jewish trauma; and a failure of professional organizations to adequately support Israeli and Jewish clients and colleagues. 

Beyond organizational responses, individual mental health professionals have also engaged in problematic and concerning discourse on social media platforms since October 7. While not exhaustive, a few examples (links available upon request) include: 

• On Instagram: A counselor educator posted multiple statements, including: “Stop condemning October 7th.” “Palestinians have the right to resist by any and all means necessary.” “I firmly believe that any mental health professional who supports the actions of Israel is trash.” 
• On LinkedIn: A social worker wrote, “… I won’t condemn Hamas because Israel has been violating our rights for years… What happened was a consequence of their own actions. We have the right to defend ourselves, and this is the first time we’ve done it.” 
• On Instagram: After October 7, a psychologist posted, “How dare you slander the names of our martyrs as terrorists,” and expressed support for a public statement against “anyone condemning the Palestinians’ armed resistance.”

Under their respective associations, mental health professionals purport to operate from frameworks grounded in Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI), multiculturalism and social justice, and intersectionality. Yet, these frameworks are frequently applied inequitably when it comes to Jewish identity, with ongoing oversights in recognizing the ethno-religious nature of Judaism, the rich diversity and extensive range of cultural backgrounds among Jewish people, the profound history of the Jewish population, and Judaism as an intersecting identity.

At the same time, while many colleagues and organizations rooted in these frameworks have been vocal in issuing critical and, often, inflammatory anti-Israel statements—often framed as critiques of Zionism—they have notably remained silent on other international tragedies unfolding around the world. This inconsistency raises serious questions about selective advocacy and contributes to a growing sense among Jewish professionals that their identities and concerns are being uniquely invalidated, dismissed, and marginalized.

To many colleagues, this article may seem unjust or one-sided—and could potentially result in professional repercussions—particularly when written from the perspective of an American Israeli Zionist. Yet such a reaction warrants deeper reflection and introspection on several critical questions. At what point did it become controversial to acknowledge the horrific atrocities committed against innocent individuals—including the mutilation and sexual violence of both men and women—and the abduction of 251 hostages? 

When did Zionism—the movement for Jewish self-determination in the Jewish ancestral homeland, Israel—come to be mischaracterized as inherently racist or anti-Palestinian? While it is human nature for individuals across the political and ideological spectrum to hold diverse worldviews, many who identify as Zionists also support and advocate for Palestinian self-determination—particularly through the dismantling and eradication of Hamas, which for years—and especially since October 7—has inflicted profound suffering on the Palestinian people, including the obstruction and theft of humanitarian aid, the torture and murder of aid workers, and the placement of bounties on their lives.

Regrettably, open and meaningful discourse about Zionism has not been widely accepted within many mental health circles. Instead, numerous associations and professional spaces have engaged in the tokenization of Jews—most notably by amplifying the voices of anti-Zionist Jews, scholars, and organizations such as Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) as go-to educational resources. These sources, and others, often downplay or invalidate antisemitism and promote harmful, inaccurate narratives about Israel that fail to reflect the broad and diverse range of Jewish perspectives on Zionism. Despite growing recognition that tokenization perpetuates exclusion under the guise of inclusion, this practice remains widespread—particularly when selectively elevated voices are treated as representative of the entire Jewish community.

Ultimately, the professional exclusion experienced by Jewish, Israeli, and Zionist-identifying mental health professionals—alongside significant rates of global antisemitism—has left many Jewish colleagues with a deep sense of professional loss and abandonment. This is further compounded by the ongoing emotional and psychological impact of the October 7 atrocities on Israelis and Jews in the diaspora, as well as by subsequent terror attacks in both Israel and the United States—including in Washington D.C. and Boulder, Colorado—and warnings from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) about an “Elevated Threat to Israeli and Jewish Communities.”

In the face of this abandonment, many Jewish students, professionals, and allies have turned to one another for support, education, consultation, and advocacy through organizations such as The Jewish Therapist Collective, Psychologists Against Antisemitism, and the Association of Jewish Psychologists. Each of these organizations has provided a safe and affirming space for health and mental health professionals who have otherwise felt compelled to withdraw from their respective professional associations.

Equally important, this article would be remiss not to acknowledge the vital role allies have played in supporting their Jewish and Israeli colleagues—a role for which words cannot fully express our community’s heartfelt gratitude. With the unwavering support of allies, and drawing on the enduring resilience of the Jewish people, Jewish health and mental health professionals will continue to persevere and remain steadfast in their dedicated service to the broader community during these agonizing times. 

However, if health and mental health professions are to uphold their core professional values and genuinely commit to the tenets of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, they must first confront the pervasive antisemitism—often masked as anti-Zionism—within their professions. Only by recognizing this reality and actively addressing the resulting alienation of Jewish colleagues can allied mental health professions begin to repair trust and cultivate truly inclusive spaces. 

Until such concerns are addressed, the very notion of “helping” within the helping professions becomes questionable—particularly when considering who is selectively able to receive help, who is being helped, and by whom. 

If we, as a profession, take the time to reflect on these questions and the resulting systemic gaps in clinical care, it is my hope that allied mental health professionals will come together over our shared humanity, engage in open and reciprocal discourse, and collaboratively recommit to the core values of our fields—ensuring that safe spaces and a genuine sense of belonging once again become fundamental rights entrusted to all clients and colleagues.

*The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the United States Government, or the University of South Carolina School of Medicine.