.png)
The recent statement by the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) expresses solidarity with Palestinian social workers and acknowledges the immense suffering in Gaza. However, it falls drastically short of the clarity and strength that the situation demands. Palestinians are not facing “unimaginable adversity” or simply “relentless violence”, they are facing *genocide*. Why does IFSW avoid this language?
The omission of terms like “genocide,” “ethnic cleansing,” “starvation,” and “war crimes” significantly weakens the moral and legal clarity needed to address the ongoing crisis. These terms are not merely political rhetoric; they are legal categories with profound international significance. The failure to include them in the statement avoids confronting the undeniable facts of systemic violence being perpetrated by the Israeli state in Gaza and the West Bank. Social workers have an ethical obligation to challenge injustice, yet this statement fails to fully engage with the brutal reality of what is happening on the ground.
The passive language used, phrases like “end the violence” and “protect the lives of civilians”, masks the agency of the perpetrators. These vague statements obscure the direct actions of the Israeli state and the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), which are causing the suffering and deaths of countless innocent civilians. Without explicitly naming the aggressors, the call for peace risks becoming a neutral stance in the face of oppression, erasing accountability and downplaying the urgency of confronting the reality of state-sponsored violence.
Additionally, the statement entirely neglects the historical and structural context of the violence. There is no mention of the Israeli occupation, the blockade of Gaza, or the ongoing settler-colonial project that has systematically oppressed Palestinians for decades. This omission erases the foundational causes of the current violence, misrepresenting the conflict as an isolated humanitarian crisis rather than the continuation of a long-standing, deeply rooted system of apartheid and ethnic cleansing. Ignoring this context betrays the profession’s commitment to understanding and addressing the root causes of injustice.
In conclusion, the IFSW statement is grossly inadequate in the face of the current crisis and does not adequately reflect the values of social work.
Social workers are ethically bound to challenge injustice, yet this statement avoids confronting the full extent of the suffering and violence inflicted upon Palestinians. The IFSW must do better: it must use clear, direct language that condemns Israel’s genocidal actions, acknowledges the structural violence, and stands unequivocally in solidarity with the oppressed. If the global social work community is to live up to its core values of justice, dignity, and human rights, it must represent the truth, not political pressures that sanitise and distort it.
ENDS
