5/ what a lost opportunity for a narrowly crafted censure of israeli or palestinian social workers who in their professional capacity violate international law, be it by actively participating in torture, psychological manipulation, arrest of children, let alone genocide and crimes against humanity.

4/ And do they really plan to require social workers anywhere in the world to exempt themselves from mandatory combat? Do they enforce any social workers who does anything that isn't "non-violent" in any capacity? This is ridiculously idealistic standard, and such overreach it smacks of antisemitism

3/ "The Executive asked the IUSW if they would be willing to request that their government exempt social workers from military conscription into active combat roles on the basis that their skills should be used for peacebuilding."

2/ By condemning the whole of Israeli social workers as citizens merely for serving, regardless of specific conduct, regardless if whether in their professional capacity, and regardless of their political actions when not serving, they are basically saying Israel has no moral right to an army.

2/ So do they condemn specific potential Israeli social workers who promote and participate in genocidal actions in Gaza? No: they condemn all Israeli social workers carte blanche for participating in the army and not asking for an exemption. Israel has a conscription; everyone able serves.

The arguments, models, theories in favor of these are not obvious, and some are outright counterintuitive compared to the visceral pull of authoritarian satisfaction.

As a therapist who’s treated many people with ptsd, i agree the book can go too far when taken as gospel. At the same time, cbt has its limitations and and is not for everyone. In the end treating trauma requires a lot of flexibility, and different people heal in different ways.