Israel, Jewish diaspora, October 7

Traumatic invalidation in the Jewish community after October 7

‘Traumatic invalidation piles on to the epigenetic and generational trauma that Jews have…’

Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 1-28-2025, by Miri Bar-Halperna, Department of Psychiatry, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and Jaclyn Wolfman,  Village Psychology, Belmont, MA
Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License.
[NOTE that linked references in the following Benicia Independent text do not work. For linked references, see the original article in the Journal.]

Abstract
The October 7, 2023 attacks in Israel by the Hamas terrorist organization triggered profound trauma within the Jewish community, not only stemming from the events themselves but also from the response of others in the aftermath. Rather than being met with compassion and care, many individuals instead encountered emotional neglect, criticism, blame, and even outright denial of their pain. These responses occurred on individual, institutional, and societal levels. Drawing from Harned’s (2022) conceptualization of traumatic invalidation, this paper applies this framework to understand the psychological impact of the rise in antisemitism on the Jewish community. Traumatic invalidation, as defined by Linehan (2015), involves chronic or extreme denial of an individual’s significant private experiences, characteristics, or reactions, often by influential figures or groups upon whom the individual relies. Such invalidation can result in profound shifts in self-perception, emotional regulation, and worldview. This paper aims to shed light on the dynamics of traumatic invalidation within the Jewish community post October 7, provide recommendations for trauma-informed and culturally sensitive interventions, and discuss implications for future research.

Keywords
Traumatic invalidation, Jewish community, culturally sensitive therapy, trauma therapy, intergenerational trauma, minority trauma, war and terrorism, Antisemitism

Invalidating behaviors can take many forms but share a common feature of attacking the person’s sense of self and personal validity by communicating that they are bad, wrong, unacceptable, and unwanted. – Melanie Harned, Treating Trauma in Dialectical Behavior Therapy (2022)

As trauma therapists, our thoughts quickly turned to our clients and how they would be impacted after October 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists murdered over 1,200 civilians in Israel and kidnapped 240 more. The terrorists slaughtered entire families, raped women, murdered babies and the elderly, and as of this writing continue to hold men, women, and children hostage in Gaza. This was the beginning of the war between Israel and Hamas, which has led to destruction, death, and a humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip (AFP & Times of Israel staff, 2023; Boxerman, 2023; Liebermann, 2023; Vinograd & Kershner, 2023).

Jewish communities around the world were grief-stricken, outraged, heartbroken, and afraid (Russell et al., 2023). It was the deadliest massacre of Jews in a single day since the Holocaust (Lee & Madhani, 2023). Some of our clients were mourning loved ones and some were hearing about friends of friends who were kidnapped, murdered, or survived. Some were seeing the young people in their families go off to war. Many who considered Israel to be the one place in the world where they could live safely had that belief shaken. Jews all over the world were reminded of the traumas of their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents (Abrams & Armeni, 2023).

What we found was that in addition to their responses to the clearly traumatic events of murder, rape, and kidnapping, our Jewish clients—and our Jewish colleagues—were talking about something else distressing that was happening that was sometimes difficult to name and understand. It had to do with the reactions after October 7 from friends, colleagues, and larger organizations. Rather than being met with compassion and care, many were instead met with a stunning mix of silence, blaming, excluding, and even outright denying the atrocities of October 7 along with any emotional pain stemming from them.

In trauma therapy, there is a term for this type of response from others-traumatic invalidation. “Traumatic invalidation is extreme or repetitive invalidation of individuals’ significant private experiences, characteristics identified as important aspects of themselves, or reactions to themselves or to the world … .Typically, traumatic invalidation comes from a very important person, group, or authority” and “leads to psychological exclusion or perception of the individual as an outsider” (Linehan, 2015, p. 304). According to Bohus et al. (2013), traumatic invalidation is a social trauma that can create an existential crisis, since human beings cannot survive without our group. This means that when someone is threatened with being rejected by the group, they might feel that it is a life and death situation. Social invalidation then means that the basic principle of social survival is questioned.

While minor forms of invalidation occur frequently within relationships and can usually be coped with adaptively, when invalidation is extreme and/or chronic, it can be a risk factor for the development of problems in emotional, interpersonal, and behavioral domains. Specifically, invalidation is a risk factor for emotion dysregulation, anxiety, depression, and interpersonal sensitivity and dysfunction (Selby et al., 2008; Yap et al., 2008). In some situations, the psychological consequences of chronic traumatic invalidation can be very painful and long-lasting. In fact, individuals who experience traumatic invalidation may develop symptoms of posttraumatic stress (PTSD), including intrusion symptoms, avoidance, changes in cognition and mood, dissociation, and changes in emotional arousal and behavioral reactivity (Hong & Lishner, 2016; Hong et al., 2011; Ullman & Filipas, 2001). Research indicates that traumatic invalidation, such as emotional or psychological abuse, can have just as much—or even more—of a negative impact on mental health as other events that do meet the American Psychiatric Association’s criteria for a traumatic event such as threat of death or serious injury (American Psychiatric Association, 2022; Mechanic et al., 2008; Spinazzola et al., 2014).

Furthermore, minority stressors, such as prejudice, discrimination, and rejection related to one’s identity, can be conceptualized not only as an invalidation of that individual’s social characteristics but also as an invalidation of their social and material needs. Research has demonstrated that minority stress may increase the risk of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other emotional disorders (Cardona et al., 2022; Jeevanba et al., 2024; Pieterse et al., 2010; Sibrava et al., 2019). Harned (2022) discussed the different sources of identity-based traumatic invalidation such as family of origin, important relationships (peers, partners, coworkers), institutions (school, healthcare systems), and culture (systemic racism, media). Harned (2022) further noted that identity-based traumatic invalidation can be a single event (direct experience such as getting called a dirty Zionist or someone tearing down your mezuzah, a parchment inscribed with religious texts and attached in a case to the doorpost of a Jewish house as a sign of faith, from your dorm room), vicarious exposure (hearing about or witnessing acts of antisemitism toward other people), and cumulative direct exposure (microaggressions, being excluded at work/school, and regularly being discriminated against).

Jewish people are 0.2% of the world population (Jewish Agency for Israel, 2023) and have suffered from ongoing hate crimes and discrimination for generations (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, n.d.). While traumatic invalidation related to antisemitism has been happening long before October 7, we focus on these experiences due to the surge in antisemitic incidents that continue to impact the Jewish community following October 7. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) reported a 140% increase in antisemitism cases in the USA from 2022 to 2023 with a massive spike after October 7 (Anti-Defamation League, 2024a).

In this paper, we are going to apply the traumatic invalidation framework as described by Melanie Harned (2022) to Jewish experiences since October 7. Harned applied the concept of traumatic invalidation to experiences of discrimination in racial and ethnic minorities but did not mention Jewish experiences specifically. We aim to introduce a conceptualization of Jewish-based traumatic invalidation and discuss related treatment implications and recommendations for future research.

…This excellent study is CONTINUED, WITH LINKS AND FOOTNOTES… in JOURNAL OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

 

Benicia, Benicia parks, Stephen Golub

Stephen Golub: Psssst! Here’s a Great Way to Increase Your Property Value in Benicia: Vote for Parks

By Stephen Golub, Benicia resident and author. September 7, 2025. [First published in the Benicia Herald on 9/7/25.]

 Stephen Golub, A Promised Land – America as a Developing Country

Each year my wife and I pay thousands of dollars in property taxes that support Benicia schools, even though we’ve never had kids or grandkids attend them. People pay such taxes without reaping direct benefits partly because it’s required, but also because it’s part of being a good citizen: It’s what people do in and for a community.

But hey, I’m by no means presenting myself as a paragon of virtue here. Paying such taxes is very much in my self-interest.

How’s that? Great schools are part of what keeps Benicia such a great place to live, which in turn fuels our property values that rise over time.

Similarly, I don’t drive around town much – maybe a few times per week – but good roads benefit my investment in my home. So yeah, it’s in my self-interest to pay for schools and roads even as I, like many of you, don’t directly benefit much or at all from them. We willingly (though perhaps not gladly) pay such levies because we each benefit.

The same goes for parks. And for the proposed Citywide Parks, Landscape, and Lighting Assessment District (PLLAD). Property owners can vote for or against the measure by October 14 via mail-in ballot (which must be received by the City, and not simply postmarked, by that date), by submitting it at the City Council meeting that day or by returning it to the City Clerk’s Office at City Hall by then.

(FYI: The City is convening a community meeting this Tuesday, September 9, from 6 to 8 pm, at the Fitzgerald Field Grandstand, 249 East H Street, at which City staff will share information, welcome feedback and answer questions about the PLLAD. You can also find additional details at a City site: BelieveInBenicia.org.)

I hardly use Benicia’s parks. But I do recall that years ago when my wife and I were checking Benicia out as a place to move to, we visited the Community Park, passed by several other parks and were impressed by now nice they all were.

Now, what if the Community Park’s ballfields were completely run-down? What if the others were weed-filled lots? What if broken lighting makes the facilities less usable or safe for early evening use? What if our trails are heavily littered or less accessible? I don’t know if we would have made this wonderful town our own or if future prospective residents would do the same. Maybe some young families who are potential Benicians would move elsewhere after seeing a disrepaired state of affairs here.

I do know that other attractive Bay Area cities – our neighbors in some respects, competitors for residents and businesses in others – appreciate and invest in the appeal of pleasant parks, trails, lighting and the like.

Parks are similarly part of what makes Benicia such a pleasant locale in which to live and a home here such a sound investment – even for those of us who don’t live near a park or use them much. They’re a face of this fantastic place. Together with our  waterfront setting and First Street, they’re the first things many visitors see as they stroll or drive through town.

I realize and respect that some Benicians have trouble with specific aspects of the PLLAD. I might even agree with one or two such criticisms.

But let’s not lose the forest for the trees in deciding whether we’re going to maintain and improve our parks and related facilities, including gradually dealing with $55 million of deferred maintenance and repairing our 19 (out of 21) playgrounds that are over 20 years old. The value of private property flows partly from the appeal of an area’s public places.

The benefits are not just financial. Good parks are good for public health in all sorts of ways. In line with “broken windows” data  on crime (which indicates that crime can rise in communities that appear broken-down) and research indicating that well-maintained parks and lighting deter unsavory conduct, they contribute to public safety.

And of course, while public health and public safety are highly desirable in and of themselves, they in turn contribute to property values.

Furthermore, while some out-of-towners may simply come and go in using these facilities – a benefit we shouldn’t begrudge them – others aid Benicia businesses and employment by coupling park and beach use here with visits to our supermarkets, restaurants, shops or galleries.

I’d add that we’ve recently been down a similar road and unfortunately decided to forego financial benefits. Last year, before Valero announced its plans to shutter the refinery, Benicians voted to reject a property transfer tax. If that measure had passed, the eventual sale of the refinery could have netted Benicia $10 million or more. Now we’ll net nada.

Some may say that the parks will be fine even without the proposed PLLAD. But  the closure of the Valero refinery sooner or later will put a big burden on the City budget. Cuts will have to come somewhere. Without the PLLAD, parks will seriously suffer if we want to try to maintain police and fire protection – or do folks wish to cut those services instead?

Even if the refinery closes later rather than sooner, Benicia’s still dealing with resource challenges that undercut our capacity to maintain the parks, trails and related facilities.

Some understandably object to yet another fee for city services. I know that the maximum assessment of $208 per parcel is nothing to sneeze at. But that 57 cents per day (and far less for many property owners) is still a small price to pay for many thousands of dollars in annually increasing property value. It’s an investment in our own homes and businesses.

If you could spend a relatively tiny bit more to ensure that your home’s worth rises rather than falls, that you profit by thousands or tens of thousands of dollars more when you eventually sell it, that your kids inherit a better property down the line or that you can rent it out for more, you might decide it makes sense to shell out those 10 or 25 or 57 cents per day for your home.

Well, Benicia is our home. The parks are our living room and front yard.

Finally, let’s face it: We know of other Bay Area communities where public service breakdowns have damaged property values, as well as public safety and health. It can happen all too easily if things start to slip. We can’t let the same fate befall Benicia.

So let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Please  vote for the PLLAD not just because it benefits this lovely community we call home, but because – even if we don’t use the parks or we dislike elements of the proposal – it’s good for each of us and our pocketbooks.

Benicia resident and author Stephen Golub, A Promised Land

CHECK OUT STEPHEN GOLUB’S BLOG, A PROMISED LAND

…and… here’s more Golub on the Benicia Independent

California, Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Hawaii, Oregon, Public Health, Washington State

California, Oregon, and Washington launch West Coast Health Alliance to uphold scientific integrity in public health as Trump destroys CDC’s credibility

“In response to recent federal actions that have undermined the independence of the CDC and raised concerns about the politicization of science…”

Sept 3, 2025, By California Governor Gavin Newsom
…[Note also on Sep 4: “Hawaii to join West Coast Health Alliance”]

What you need to know: In response to recent federal actions that have undermined the independence of the CDC and raised concerns about the politicization of science, California, Oregon, and Washington are beginning the process to provide evidence-based unified recommendations to their residents regarding who should receive immunizations and to help ensure the public has access and credible information for confidence in vaccine safety and efficacy.

SACRAMENTO — Today, California Governor Gavin Newsom, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek, and Washington Governor Bob Ferguson announced they will launch a new West Coast Health Alliance to ensure residents remain protected by science, not politics. The alliance represents a unified regional response to the Trump Administration’s destruction of the U.S. CDC’s credibility and scientific integrity.

“President Trump’s mass firing of CDC doctors and scientists — and his blatant politicization of the agency — is a direct assault on the health and safety of the American people. The CDC has become a political tool that increasingly peddles ideology instead of science, ideology that will lead to severe health consequences. California, Oregon, and Washington will not allow the people of our states to be put at risk.”

Joint statement from Governors Newsom, Kotek, and Ferguson

“The dismantling of public health and dismissal of experienced and respected health leaders and advisors, along with the lack of using science, data, and evidence to improve our nation’s health are placing lives at risk,” said Erica Pan, MD, MPH, FIDSA, FAAP, Director and State Public Health Officer, California Department of Public Health. “California stands together with our public health and medical professional colleagues to uphold integrity and support our mission to protect the health of our communities.”

“Our communities deserve clear and transparent communication about vaccines — communication grounded in science, not ideology,” said Sejal Hathi, MD, MBA, Director, Oregon Health Authority. “Vaccines are among the most powerful tools in modern medicine; they have indisputably saved millions of lives. But when guidance about their use becomes inconsistent or politicized, it undermines public trust at precisely the moment we need it most. That is why Oregon is committed, alongside California and Washington, to leading with science and delivering evidence-based recommendations that protect health, save lives, and restore confidence in our public health system.”

“When federal agencies abandon evidence-based recommendations in favor of ideology, we cannot continue down that same path,” said Dennis Worsham, Secretary of Health, Washington State Department of Health. “Washington State will not compromise when it comes to our values: science drives our public health policy. Public health at its core is about prevention — preventing illness, preventing the spread of disease, and preventing early, avoidable deaths. We stand firmly with trusted medical professionals and organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, as well as fellow West Coast health agencies — whose guidance remains rooted in rigorous research and clinical expertise. Our commitment is to the health and safety of our communities, protecting lives through prevention, and not yielding to unsubstantiated theories that dismiss decades of proven public health practice.” 

Details about this new Alliance

Our three states share a commitment to ensuring that public health recommendations are guided by safety, efficacy, transparency, access, and trust. The Alliance will help safeguard scientific expertise by ensuring that public health policies in California, Oregon, and Washington are informed by trusted scientists, clinicians, and other public health leaders. Through this partnership, the three states will start coordinating health guidelines by aligning immunization recommendations informed by respected national medical organizations. This will allow residents to receive consistent, science-based recommendations they can rely on — regardless of shifting federal actions.

In the coming weeks, the Alliance will finalize shared principles to strengthen public confidence in vaccines and in public health. While each state will independently pursue strategies shaped by their unique laws, geographies, histories, and peoples, these shared principles will form the foundations of the Alliance. Importantly, the three states affirm and respect Tribal sovereignty, recognizing that Tribes maintain their sovereign authority over vaccine services.

CDC’s dismantling

Since its founding, the CDC has been central to protecting Americans from disease. But recent leadership changes, reduced transparency, and the sidelining of long-trusted advisory bodies have impaired the agency’s capacity to prepare the nation for respiratory virus season and other public health challenges. In a vacuum of clear, evidence-based vaccine guidance, manufacturers lack reliable information to plan production, health care providers struggle to provide consistent plans of care, and families face uncertainty about access and coverage.

In June, California, Oregon, and Washington condemned Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s removal of all 17 members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Today, we reaffirm our commitment to science-driven decision-making. We will continue to provide clear, evidence-based guidance to people living in our states, look to scientific experts in trusted medical professional organizations for recommendations, and work with public health leaders across the country to ensure all Americans are protected. The absence of consistent, science-based federal leadership poses a direct threat to our nation’s health security. To protect the health of our communities, the West Coast Health Alliance will continue to ensure that our public health strategies are based on best available science.