Letter to the Editor Open Access

Babish et al.’s (2025) letter contains critical factual errors that undermine its credibility. The authors incorrectly argue that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that genocide was occurring in Gaza.

Although such charges were brought, the ICJ (2024, para. 35) made no such finding. In this case, Babish et al. (2025) misrepresent allegations as facts. Their assertion that “Palestinians, not Israelis, have been displaced” (p. 1) also stands in contrast to documented evidence from the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (2023) and the Central Bureau of Mass Media (2024) showing that more than 140,000 Israelis were forcibly displaced from their homes after the October 7, 2023, attack.

Another claim made by Babish et al. (2025) is that our study was biased because it excluded Arab students in higher education institutions in Israel. The teaching language in all academic institutions in Israel is Hebrew; thus, the inclusion of Hebrew-speaking students does not exclude the Arab student population. Furthermore, Babish et al. (2025) suggested disparities in phone access between Arab and Jewish Israeli students without any supporting evidence. Official data from the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics (2022) show a rate of mobile device ownership of approximately 90% across both populations. Taken together, these inaccuracies employ anti-Jewish tropes to characterize Israeli Jews.

Babish et al.’s (2025) critique regarding the methodological issues in our study lacks a scientific foundation. Demanding the inclusion of Palestinian experiences in a study specifically about Israeli university students contradicts research best practices of defining specific populations to maintain statistical validity. Criticizing our quantitative study for not including qualitative methods misunderstands fundamental research design principles. Faulting our methodology for lacking pretesting for an unpredictable traumatic event demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of research limitations in crisis contexts. In addition, Babish et al. (2025) dismiss our use of validated instruments and comparisons with established population norms, which followed standard scientific practice. These examples demonstrate how the authors attempt to apply inappropriate standards rather than legitimate methodological concerns.

Most troubling is Babish et al.’s (2025) claim that our “framing of trauma in the study is problematic” (p. 1), effectively dismissing the horrific violence endured by the Israeli civilian population. During the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, more than 1,600 Israelis were murdered, more than 19,000 were injured, and 251 were kidnapped (58 remain hostages in Gaza). Media footage documenting this violence continues to serve as an additional source of traumatization. Choosing to condemn Israeli Jews while acknowledging only Palestinian suffering is severely problematic.

We recognize that this conflict has brought immense suffering to both Israelis and Palestinians. The suffering of one group does not negate the suffering of another. Our hearts are with everyone affected by violence and war throughout the region and globally. However, holding Israeli Jewish scientists accountable for government actions aligns with antisemitic tropes that conflate individual Jews with state policies.

Science is essential to understanding how best to provide care for all groups who require healing after war. Letters like Babish et al.’s (2025) that contain inaccuracies and apply inappropriate standards not only fail to elevate research but also present additional barriers to recovery and healing. The fact that these issues strongly align with recognized patterns of antisemitism is deeply concerning for academic discourse and the pursuit of evidence-based approaches to trauma and recovery.