What do social work organizations say about the Gaza crisis: A critical discourse analysis

Abstract

This study examines the institutional discourses of social work professional organizations in the context of Gaza and analyzes how the profession's relationship with human rights and social justice is tested in practice. Official statements issued by the International Federation of Social Workers, the British Association of Social Workers, the Canadian Association of Social Workers, and the (Turkish) Association of Social Workers from 7 October 2023 to 30 November 2025 were included in the study. The research focuses on naming practices, attribution of responsibility, and conspicuous silences, utilizing the International Court of Justice's interim measures as a normative context. Findings indicate that organizational discourses occupy varying thresholds between humanitarian sensitivity and strategic institutional positioning. Crucially, the responses construct Gaza as a professional "taboo," employing mechanisms of selective sensitivity and prescribed sensitivity to limit ethical boundaries. By avoiding the explicit naming of international crimes despite clear legal signals, these discursive strategies place the profession's universal values under debate. Ultimately, the analysis exposes a profound tension between institutional caution and the professional obligation to challenge structural injustices, revealing a crisis that questions the core ethical foundations of global social work.This article critically examines the attitudes of national and international social work umbrella organizations toward the events during the Gaza crisis through discourse analysis, focusing on the concepts and silences used or not used (avoided) in the discourses. In this context, the International Federation of Social Workers, British Association of Social Workers, Canadian Association of Social Workers, and (Turkish) Association of Social Workers were included in the study from 7 October 2023 to 30 November 2025. When the findings are analyzed, it is seen that initially the statements were mainly shaped around humanitarian concerns and the discourse of professional impartiality, the main focus was on the suffering faced by both sides, and there was a reluctance to refer to violations of human rights and international law. However, over time, it was observed that these discourses evolved in different tones, and a public opinion was formed in favor of human rights violations, international law, and an end to the attacks. In conclusion, this article reveals that discursive approaches such as balance, silence, and neutrality are not only descriptive but also include ethical and political contexts.