The Day After: What Trauma Psychology Can Teach Us About Israel's Return to Routine

When this week's ceasefire was disrupted, many Israelis experienced a familiar sequence of events. Opening the Home Front Command app to check the status of schools and public gatherings. Questions about whether graduations, recitals, and end-of-year celebrations would proceed as planned. By late Sunday evening, many families had already received notice that schools would be closed the following day.

Life interrupted—again.

The now-familiar alert tone returned for Israelis in the center and south of Israel. Families once again reviewed shelter procedures, checked emergency supplies, and closed the reinforced metal shutters of their safe rooms.

For many, these actions carried a noticeable emotional weight. The physical act of preparing a protected space serves as a tangible reminder that circumstances have changed. It marks a transition from a period of relative calm to renewed uncertainty.

On a personal note, I remember what it felt like when the ceasefire first went into effect in early April and I pulled open the heavy metal shutter on our safe room window, letting natural light inside for the first time in more than a month. It felt like a small declaration of confidence in the belief that normal life was returning. Closing it again two months later this past Monday morning was heavy, both emotionally and physically.

The Mamad Window

Overnight and into the early morning hours, Home Front Command alerts returned to phones across the country. Questions quickly followed. Who is firing? How many missiles? For how long? As uncertainty returns, many people instinctively begin searching for information. News alerts are refreshed. Politicians' statements are analyzed. Predictions about what comes next proliferate. These behaviors are understandable attempts to regain a sense of certainty and control in an uncertain situation.

Then, as day progressed and an uneasy calm returned, it became increasingly clear that the ceasefire might once again hold.

And just like that, by early Monday evening, we were told that tomorrow we would return to routine: shigrah (שגרה).

The next morning, children went back to school. Graduations and after-school programs resumed. Parents returned to work. Public spaces reopened. Daily routines resumed for the vast majority of the country.

To some observers, this response may appear surprising. One might assume that after a stressful event, the healthiest approach would be to pause, process, and discuss the experience in depth. In fact, for many years this assumption shaped the way mental health professionals responded to trauma.

However, the science of trauma recovery has evolved considerably over the past several decades. What we have learned is that while emotional processing is important, one of the strongest factors supporting recovery is often something much simpler: helping people safely and confidently return to ordinary life.

What We Used to Think

For many years, mental health professionals believed that people exposed to traumatic events should be encouraged to immediately process and discuss the stressful experiences in structured group settings.

The rationale was compelling. By discussing the details of a traumatic event shortly after it occurred, individuals would theoretically be less likely to develop persistent traumatic stress reactions.

As a result, debriefing programs became widely adopted across military, emergency response, and disaster settings.

As higher-quality research accumulated, however, findings became increasingly mixed. More recent reviews have found mixed evidence that mandatory psychological debriefing reduces the likelihood of developing PTSD and, in some cases, it may actually increase distress (Ancarani et al., 2025).

Researchers began to recognize that individuals recover from adversity in different ways and at different paces. Encouraging everyone to recount a traumatic experience immediately after it occurs may inadvertently interfere with natural recovery processes.

As a result, trauma-informed care shifted away from universal debriefing and toward approaches such as Psychological First Aid, which emphasize psychoeducation, normalization, safety, support, practical assistance, and monitoring as needed.

What We Know Now

Current best practices emphasize several key principles in the immediate aftermath of trauma:

• Promote physical and emotional safety.

• Provide accurate information about common stress reactions.

• Normalize emotional responses such as fear, irritability, sadness, or difficulty concentrating.

• Strengthen social support and community connection.

• Monitor individuals who may be at elevated risk for persistent symptoms.

• Facilitate a return to normal routines and meaningful activities whenever possible.

This last principle deserves particular attention.

Most individuals exposed to highly stressful events do not go on to develop PTSD. Dr. George Bonanno, a psychology professor at Columbia University, was among the first researchers to document this phenomenon, observing that many people demonstrated resilience and adapted successfully in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks (Bonanno, 2004). Human beings possess a remarkable capacity for adaptation. One of the ways this adaptation occurs is through re-engagement with daily life.

School, work, family responsibilities, religious practice, exercise, and social connection all provide structure and predictability. These routines help restore a sense of control and continuity at a time when the world may feel uncertain (Liang et al., 2023).

The Israeli Concept of Chosen

In Israel, this process of adaptation is reflected in a cultural concept that many people know intuitively: chosen (חוסן).

Often translated as "resilience," chosen encompasses more than simply enduring hardship. It reflects the capacity to withstand adversity, adapt to changing circumstances, and continue functioning despite challenges.

Importantly, resilience does not mean the absence of distress. People can feel anxious, worried, frustrated, saddened, or uncertain while simultaneously demonstrating resilience. The two are not mutually exclusive.

In many ways, Israel's response to disruption reflects this principle. Communities acknowledge danger while continuing to function. Schools reopen when it is safe to do so. Families adapt. Social networks mobilize. Life moves forward.

Why Returning to Routine Matters

When children returned to school the day after the ceasefire resumed, the goal was not to ignore the reality of the situation. Nor was it to suggest that people should suppress their emotional reactions.

Rather, the return to routine communicated an important psychological message: life continues.

For children, routine provides predictability and reassurance. For adults, routine restores agency and purpose. For communities, routine reinforces social cohesion and collective efficacy.

Modern trauma psychology increasingly supports what many Israelis have learned through lived experience: while there is certainly a place for emotional support and clinical intervention when needed, resilience is often strengthened not by stopping life entirely to focus on the traumatic event, but by safely reconnecting with the routines, relationships, and responsibilities that give life meaning.

The morning after the ceasefire resumed offered a powerful illustration of this principle. Amid renewed uncertainty, Israelis did not pretend that the disruption had not occurred. They checked the news, spoke with family members, adjusted plans, and acknowledged the reality of the situation. Then, when it was safe to do so, they returned to school, work, celebrations, and everyday responsibilities.

That response is not denial. It is chosen (חוסן).

References

Ancarani, F., Garijo Añaños, P., Gutiérrez, B., Pérez-Nievas, J., Vicente-Rodríguez, G., & Gimeno Marco, F. (2025). The effectiveness of debriefing on the mental health of rescue teams: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 22(4), 590. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22040590

Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events?. American psychologist, 59(1), 20.

Liang, L., Bonanno, G. A., Hougen, C., Hobfoll, S. E., & Hou, W. K. (2023). Everyday life experiences for evaluating post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 14(2), 2238584. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008066.2023.2238584