Controversy Surrounding Trauma Expert Bessel van der Kolk

Earlier this month, psychiatrist Bessel van der Kolk, a leading figure in trauma research, conducted a workshop at the Holistic Research retreat center in Rhinebeck, New York. During the session, he drew comparisons between Israelis and Nazis, prompting significant backlash.

Weeks later, this incident continues to resonate within Jewish, healthcare, and trauma communities. The Omega Institute issued an apology for hosting van der Kolk, citing his “inappropriate and anti-Semitic comments.”

This situation is more than just another academic misstep; it highlights a disturbing trend where Jewish trauma is overlooked or misrepresented even by prominent voices in psychology. These misperceptions can have profound implications.

Van der Kolk is known globally for his bestselling book “The Body Keeps the Score” and is recognized for his influential PTSD research alongside psychiatrist Judith Herman. On a personal note, I’ve interacted with him for several years, having taught his work to students during my time at Mount St. Mary’s University in Los Angeles, where he even drafted parts of his manuscripts at my dining room table.

He possesses a background that should inform his understanding of Jewish trauma—growing up in the Netherlands during Nazi occupation, where a staggering 75% of Dutch Jews perished. Yet, at the Omega Institute workshop in early August, van der Kolk and his wife led discussions on “trauma, memory, and self-repair.”

A social media post from an attendee, Alisa Portnoy, who is a trauma recovery coach, echoed sentiments that were over-the-top, likening the actions of Israelis in Gaza to the atrocities committed by the Nazis.

It’s somewhat ironic that just last year, van der Kolk and psychologist Jessica Stern noted in an op-ed that both sides often label each other as “Nazis.”

The rising tide of anti-Semitic extremism in the U.S. has raised alarms since 2020. Portnoy accused van der Kolk of diminishing Orthodox Jewish experiences by suggesting they prioritize their community over facing harsh truths.

By August 13th, Portnoy’s comments had gone viral, leading various organizations, including “Doctors Against Anti-Semitism,” to issue apologies for van der Kolk’s remarks, labeling them as “offensive” and “unwarranted.” In a related statement, the Omega Institute declared that he would not return to conduct further workshops.

Despite the fallout, I reached out to van der Kolk and was surprised to find a dismissive attitude in his correspondence. He opted to disregard the implications of his comments and even suggested a potential legal confrontation regarding the Omega Institute’s apology.

When I initiated a nonprofit aimed at aiding survivors of trauma from the Hamas attacks on October 7th, van der Kolk responded with sarcasm, questioning what I was doing for Palestinians. I found this tact troubling; I had previously worked with Palestinian trauma cases but had never interacted with him before.

There’s a real concern about anti-Semitism lurking in spaces that are supposed to focus on healing. Recently, a group of over 3,600 mental health professionals condemned anti-Semitic remarks in the context of trauma care, urging the American Psychological Association to confront systemic biases.

Even high-profile figures like Gabor Maté have only added to this climate by minimizing the severity of acts of violence against Israelis. Instead, they often frame their arguments through a lens that disregards the trauma experienced by Jewish communities.

In this context, van der Kolk’s remarks illustrate a troubling tendency for trauma and suffering to be heavily influenced by political ideologies, distorting perceptions and responses to suffering.

It’s alarming to think about how such attitudes are accepted in professional settings dedicated to healing. Would there be any tolerance if van der Kolk had made similar comments regarding other communities? This double standard hints at a deeper ideological bias that undermines the integrity of trauma care.

Ultimately, van der Kolk’s statements reveal not just personal bias, but also a failure to recognize the severity of Jewish suffering. As leaders in trauma care, the responsibility is not only to treat but also to be sensitive to the diverse experiences of suffering in our world.

When ideology obstructs clinical clarity, it can severely hinder the very purpose of trauma care, which should be to validate and support all survivors.

I was reminded of this when Judy Leventhal, a psychotherapist and daughter of a Holocaust survivor, articulated her discomfort after attending van der Kolk’s workshop.