This process of narrative processing aligns with the foundational principles of Narrative Therapy (5), emphasizing the “re-authoring” of life experiences as a vehicle for transformative change (55). Contemporary applications of this framework among combatants highlight the critical role of narrative processing in facilitating moral repair and enhancing resilience (6, 7). Personal narratives allow soldiers to re-construct their experiences, a cognitive and emotional effort that can be decisive for trauma processing and psychological healing (8). In this context, Judith Herman (9) argues that recovery from psychological trauma is fundamentally a social process; she emphasizes that healing cannot occur in a vacuum, but rather requires a ‘community of witnesses' and social recognition that restores the survivor's sense of belonging and human connection.

The ability to create a structured and meaningful story from traumatic experiences-narrative coherence-is critical for coping with PTSD. Soldiers often struggle with this coherence due to the emotional and cognitive dissociation that occurs during traumatic events (10). However, writing and sharing stories help soldiers gain control over their memories and emotions (8), where the integration of positive emotional expressions in trauma narratives is linked to lower levels of psychological distress (57). The content of trauma narratives, particularly the use of positive and negative emotion words, reflects emotional processing more than the grammatical structure of the narrative itself (11).

The theoretical foundation for understanding the living-room encounter is rooted in the concept of “testimony.” As Felman and Laub (12) argue, a traumatic event is characterized by a “lack of witnessing” in real-time, as the intensity of the event prevents the subject from cognitively containing it. Consequently, healing depends on the existence of a “witnessing address”—a listener who enables the survivor or soldier to become a witness to their own story. However, LaCapra (13) cautions against the tension between “working-through” and “acting-out.” While constructing a coherent narrative is a reparative tool that grants mastery over memory, there is a risk that coherence may lead to the “sanitizing” of trauma. Such a process might blur the sharp edges of guilt and moral injury to make the testimony more palatable for the audience.

Narratives contribute to personal growth by assisting soldiers in re-constructing their identities and experiences (14). This process, rooted in the “re-authoring” principles of Narrative Therapy (5), allows veterans to transform fragmented memories into a coherent story of agency. Soldiers who narrate their experiences in terms of personal growth and agency report improved mental health outcomes (7). Autobiographical storytelling facilitates the re-constructing of traumatic memories and supports a sense of autonomy, which is vital for completing one's life narrative (15).

In this context, narratives of heroism can aid the psychological resilience of military personnel by allowing them to process and articulate their experiences (1, 16). Furthermore, they assist veterans in moving from trauma-saturated narratives to those rich in possibilities and meaning (17). However, military culture, which often emphasizes stoicism and toughness, may inhibit emotional expression and make it difficult for soldiers to engage in narrative therapy (58). Additionally, narratives of Moral Injury require careful handling to transform internal monologs into constructive dialogues (18).

This section situates the initiative within the sociological context of memorial ceremonies and examines the contribution of heroism stories to the listening community.

This section is the theoretical core of the study, examining the bidirectional dynamics between the soldier and the community as the creation of a shared healing space.

The present study was conducted using an Interpretative Phenomenological approach, anchored in a social-constructivist epistemology. This approach focuses on understanding the meaning of subjective experiences through the participants' own perspectives (40). This choice was intended to ensure methodological integrity, creating a direct alignment between the research questions and the investigation of the participants' “lived experiences.” While the phenomenological framework guides the inquiry into the interviewees' inner worlds, the actual analysis was carried out through Reflexive Thematic Analysis (36). This integration allows for an in-depth phenomenological exploration of personal experience alongside the systematic identification of cross-cutting patterns and meanings (themes) in the data.

The qualitative approach allows for the discovery of emotional, communal, and value-based layers of the human experience, creating a rich and multi-dimensional picture of coping with combat and bereavement. Qualitative studies indicate their contribution to understanding deep emotions, emotional processing, and community coping mechanisms. The choice of this method is consistent with the research objective: to uncover the personal and social meanings assigned by soldiers and civilians to the shared encounter and the ways they processed the war experience within the domestic space.

For data collection, semi-structured in-depth interviews were used, designed to allow free yet focused conversation while maintaining a structure that enables comparison between interviewees (37). Such interviews have been found effective in researching sensitive emotional topics and promoting authentic discourse in situations of trauma, heroism, and meaning (38). The process of building the interview guide was based on an extensive literature review and included an initial pilot of several experimental interviews. The purpose of the pilot was to test the clarity of the questions, their level of cultural and emotional sensitivity, their logical arrangement, and the resilience of the interviewees over an extended interview period (37). Following the pilot, specific changes were made, mainly in the phrasing and order of the questions, to improve the level of engagement, accuracy, and emotional containment during the conversation. This process contributed to the validation of the research tools and increased the trustworthiness of the findings, as required by professional standards for qualitative reporting.

Operationally, the meetings are coordinated in advance through social platforms or community coordinators and follow a consistent social structure lasting between 90 to 120 min. The sessions are divided into four sequential stages: (1) Gathering and Opening, where the host defines the boundaries of the space, emphasizing discretion and non-judgmentalism; (2) narrative Testimony, involving the soldier's continuous story (approximately 45 min); (3) community Dialogue, featuring questions and reflections from the audience to foster social validation; and (4) closing and Reflection, allowing for initial processing and a transition back to routine. Hosts receive a preliminary briefing on identifying signs of emotional flooding or dissociation in real-time, enabling a proactive pause if necessary. Following the session, the host conducts a brief debriefing with the speaker to ensure their emotional well-being and, if required, activates the initiative's professional “Safety Net,” providing a clear referral path for further emotional support.

The research population consisted of 65 participants (N = 65) in the “Hero in the Living Room” initiative, divided into two core groups: 25 male and female soldiers who personally experienced combat in the “Swords of Iron” war and participated as speakers, and 40 participants from the civilian community who hosted or attended these meetings. The sample included both lone soldiers and members of organic fighting units, a distinction that allows for the examination of reciprocal healing processes in diverse military and social contexts. Participants were selected using purposeful sampling, with the intent to include a wide range of ages, genders, service types (mandatory/reserve), and community backgrounds, aiming to illuminate the diversity in personal and communal responses to the encounter (39) while addressing the civil-military cultural gaps between the military system and the civilian community.

This sampling method is considered particularly suitable for qualitative research, where the emphasis is placed on the depth and context of experiences rather than statistical generalization.

Recruitment procedure: participants were recruited through snowball sampling. To locate the initial interviewees (seeds), initial contact was made with community coordinators of the “Hero in the Living Room” project in the relevant areas, who served as “gatekeepers” and mediated the outreach to the first hosts and speakers. Following these interviews, participants were asked to refer the researcher to additional soldiers or hosts who took part in the initiative. To prevent pressure to participate, direct contact with interviewees was made only after initial consent was obtained, and interviews were coordinated after the conclusion of the community meeting rather than during it.

The interviews took place during the first 6 months of the war, according to the participants‘ choice, in convenient locations such as the interviewees' homes or private digital spaces (Zoom), and at times that allowed for a relaxed environment and space for personal and emotional discourse. This consideration was intended to allow for maximum openness and a sense of security, especially given the sensitivity of the topic of trauma and personal disclosure (40). Each interview lasted between 60 to 90 min and was fully transcribed by the researcher.

Table 1 presents the demographic and occupational characteristics of the soldiers participating in the study. The table allows for an understanding of the sample composition demographically and professionally, reflecting the diversity and representativeness of the study participants.

An examination of the data in the table shows that the group of soldiers is mostly composed of a young population (80% in the 20–29 age range). A critical finding for understanding the research results is the military status at the time of the interview: 72% of the participants (18 soldiers) were still on active duty (regular or reserve) during the interview. This fact emphasizes that the narrative processing occurred “on the move”, within the chaotic reality of the war, rather than from a distance of time.

Based on the data in Table 2, it should be emphasized that the civilian population in this study (N = 40) does not constitute a neutral or external “audience.” Analysis of demographic characteristics reveals that participants are within a “Shared Traumatic Reality”: 55% of them are parents or first-degree relatives of soldiers at the front, and all were exposed to the existential threat of October 7th. Therefore, the investigated encounter is not dichotomous (a healthy caregiver vs. an injured patient), but rather an encounter between two subjects suffering from distress at different levels: the soldier faces direct trauma (exposure to death), while the civilian faces secondary trauma, constant anxiety, and a sense of helplessness. This understanding is critical for analyzing the dynamics of reciprocal healing.

The primary research tool in this study was a semi-structured in-depth interview, chosen for its ability to allow a flexible yet systematic exploration of participants' personal experiences, perceptions, and emotions regarding sensitive issues (37, 38). The interviews were conducted in the participants' native language (Hebrew) and were subsequently transcribed and translated into English, ensuring semantic equivalence to preserve the nuance and accuracy of cultural and emotional terms.

The data collection process continued until thematic saturation was achieved. During the interviews, participants were asked, among other questions: how did the direct encounter affect your sense of personal processing? What emotional reactions arose during sharing in front of an audience? How was the connection between the soldier and the community perceived? Furthermore, sub-questions were included to explore the “dyadic self” (the interaction between soldier and listener), the physical/somatic sensations experienced during storytelling, and the tension between emotional exposure and the military ethos of stoicism and toughness.

Additionally, specific prompts were included to explore the construct of heroism, such as: “How did it feel when the hosts or audience addressed you as a ‘hero'?” and “Did you experience a gap between the public ‘hero' label and your internal feelings of fear or vulnerability?”

Interview transcripts were analyzed using qualitative content analysis based on the thematic analysis model, utilizing inductive open coding to identify patterns, themes, and recurring narratives (36, 41). The analysis was performed iteratively according to Braun and Clarke's six steps: (1) Familiarization with the data; (2) Generating initial codes; (3) Searching for themes; (4) Reviewing and refining themes; (5) Defining and naming themes; and (6) Producing the report.

The coding process was conducted while maintaining standards of reliability, consistency, and transparency (42). To maintain the reliability of the analysis and reduce researcher bias due to solitary coding, several key steps were taken (42, 61):

The analysis involved repeated reading of all interview transcripts, identification of significant statements, assigning them to conceptual categories, and subsequently formulating central themes. In this process, a balance was maintained between open reading of the findings and reference to theoretical anchors related to grief, Post-Traumatic Growth (PTG), collective memory, and community resilience (43).

In the coding process, “heroism” was operationalized as a contested narrative rather than a self-evident label. Specific codes were developed to identify how heroism was negotiated as either a self-description, a social label, or a resisted media discourse, addressing the tension between societal expectations and the participants' complex emotional reality, including resistance to simplistic militaristic glorification.

To provide a transparent representation of the findings, a theme-frequency mapping was conducted. The unit of analysis was the individual participant, where a frequency count represents the number of participants who explicitly discussed a particular theme. In cases of thematic overlap, each conceptual dimension was coded independently to ensure comprehensive coverage without inflating the relative weight of the themes.

The study's design and execution were approved by the relevant institutional ethics committee. The research was conducted in accordance with established ethical principles for qualitative research, with a specific emphasis on protecting populations in crisis situations. Participation was entirely voluntary, following a full explanation of the research goals, data collection stages, and the right to withdraw at any time (37). To ensure the autonomy of the combatants and prevent command-related pressure, the recruitment process was conducted independently and outside the military chain of command, with coordination through relevant casualty departments serving solely as a mediating factor.

Each participant signed an informed consent form, and full confidentiality and anonymity were guaranteed. Due to the sensitive nature of the study, rigorous measures were taken to ensure discretion, privacy protection, and a sensitive approach to mental health aspects (42). All interviews took place in locations chosen by the participants to create a “Holding Environment”—a safe, inclusive, and non-judgmental space conducive to narrative trauma processing.

Interview transcripts were fully anonymized. The researcher possesses specialized training and experience in managing discourse in crisis and trauma situations. These skills enabled the researcher to identify signs of distress and provide initial emotional support when necessary (36). However, a clear distinction was maintained between providing point-of-need emotional support during the interview and formal therapeutic intervention. For participants exhibiting significant distress, a “referral path” was pre-established, providing a list of specialized mental health services for continued professional assistance. The researcher ensured cultural adaptations and operated from a deep commitment to maintaining a respectful and safe environment (43).

The researcher is a psychotherapist, mental health first responder, and expert in trauma and complex trauma, involved in accompanying communities during times of crisis. This position-both as a clinician with deep professional knowledge and as a resident of the country sharing the collective traumatic reality with the participants-required extra caution. On one hand, clinical expertise allowed for the identification of nuances in emotional processing. On the other hand, there was a need for constant awareness to prevent the projection of prior professional knowledge onto the interviewees' narratives. To address this challenge, the researcher maintained a Reflexive Journal and performed a process of “Bracketing” (suspending judgment) to ensure listening that was as clean as possible to the participants' voices.

To ensure the quality of the study and the accuracy of the findings, methodological steps were taken in accordance with the criteria of Guba and Lincoln (44):

This finding relates to the first research question and focuses on the soldiers' experience. The analysis of the interviews reveals that for 88% of the soldiers (20 out of 25), the living room encounter constituted a turning point in their ability to organize fragmented war memories into a story with a beginning, middle, and end. The soldiers described the preparation for the meeting and the act of speaking before a supportive audience as an action that forced them to “step out of the bubble” and produce narrative coherence. Unlike the operational-technical discourse with their unit members, the discourse with civilians required translating the experience into emotional and clear language.

One of the combatants (R., Combat Reservist) described the need to construct the story for the audience:

Another participant (Y., a member of a rapid response team) reinforced this and described breaking the conspiracy of silence:

Alongside the cognitive organization, the findings indicate that the “good eyes” of the audience allowed the combatants to release burdens of guilt and shame. This process of Social Validation emerged from non-judgmental listening that provided new meaning to their experience, not only as heroes but as human beings who experienced hardship

A female combatant (D., a paramedic) shared the initial fear and the surprising discovery:

A. (a platoon commander) added in this context:

Finally, it emerged that the encounter assisted in the transition from traumatic sensory memory to a linear narrative. The living room served as a “Container”, enabling the transformation of sensory impressions into a structured story. As described by S. (a Search and Rescue combatant):

This theme answers the second research question and focuses on the experience of the civilian participants. The findings show that prior to the encounter, many in the community experienced severe feelings of helplessness, anxiety, and detachment, fueled mainly by passive consumption of news. The meeting with the soldier in the living room shifted their position from anxious viewers to active participants in the war effort-in the role of “Holders” of the story.

Interviewees described a sense of relief stemming from the direct human encounter, which “brought the war down to earth.” One of the hosts (M., aged 45) described:

R. (another host) sharpened the transition from passivity to activity:

Additionally, it arose that the encounter strengthened community solidarity and gave new meaning to the concept of the “Home Front” (Oref ). D. (a pensioner) told about the role of listening:

Parents of soldiers found the meeting a path to channel their personal worry. G. (a mother of soldiers) shared:

The third and most central theme connects the two parties and answers the third research question regarding mutual dynamics. The findings reveal a mechanism of “reciprocity in security”: while the soldiers provided the community with a sense of physical security (“We are guarding you”), the community provided the soldiers with a sense of mental security (“We are guarding sanity and normality for you”).

The intimacy of the living room nullified the hierarchy and allowed for an eye-level encounter. The soldiers noted that entering a normative home reminded them of the purpose of the fighting. A. (a combat reservist) described it:

A civilian participant (A., aged 55) summarized this dynamic:

The breaking of formal distance in favor of human intimacy was also prominent in the words of N. (a student):

M., a reserve officer, phrased the reciprocity sharply:

This finding highlights the model of “Community Trauma as Healing”-healing did not occur with a therapist in a clinic, but in a space where both sides acknowledged each other's pain and granted it legitimacy.

In conclusion, the findings demonstrate that the interpersonal dynamics created within the “living room” facilitate a process of reciprocal healing, where the emotional needs of both combatants and civilians complement one another. These insights serve as the basis for the discussion in the following chapter, which examines the model's theoretical implications in light of professional literature.

The first finding, “Making Order out of Chaos”, revealed that the very need to construct a story for an external audience helped soldiers organize fragmentary memories into a linear and clear narrative. The current findings extend our understanding of narrative processing by highlighting the transition from traumatic sensory memory (smells and noises) to a coherent narrative. In accordance with Ogden's (10) sensorimotor approach, the living room encounter facilitates the transformation of raw bodily impressions into a structured sequence. This process allows combatants to provide meaning and significance to their lived experience from the battlefield, while transforming raw sensory impressions into a coherent narrative, thereby assisting in emotional regulation. This finding is consistent with research literature emphasizing the importance of narrative coherence in trauma recovery. As Warren (8) notes, the ability to gain control over memories through storytelling is crucial for managing stress symptoms. In the current study, soldiers described a process similar to that found by Tappenden et al. (7), whereby phrasing the experience in terms of agency (Agency) and action contributed to a sense of self-efficacy and reduced distress.

However, the current study adds a unique layer regarding social validation (Social Validation). The validation identified in the study constitutes a critical tool for repairing “Moral Injury” (Moral Injury). The transition from a discourse of “hero vs. victim” (21, 26) to a human discourse in the domestic space allows combatants to formulate a “Dyadic Self” (Dyadic Self), where the civilian community serves as a validating “mirror” and an active partner in constructing meaning and bearing the emotional burden. The findings indicate that the intimacy and lack of judgment in “Gibor BaSalon” created a safe infrastructure for expressing moral injury-a phenomenon that usually requires a protected therapeutic space (18).

Participants in the study were not required to “play the hero”; on the contrary, they received social legitimacy to share ethical dilemmas, moments of breaking, and feelings of guilt. This process directly challenges the stoic military ethos (Stoicism) that sanctifies restraint and toughness, allowing for genuine post-traumatic growth through human intimacy that facilitates what is not always possible in the sterile clinical space. In this way, the initiative functions as a space of resistance (Resistance) to simplistic militaristic glorification and allows soldiers to reclaim their ownership over their story (Reclaiming Narrative Authority) as whole human beings facing an impossible reality.

By implementing heroism as an analytic concept, this study demonstrates that the living room encounter serves as a site for negotiating the “hero” label. The findings suggest that while the community often arrived with a pre-constructed social label of heroism, the soldiers utilized the intimate setting to offer a nuanced self-description that integrated vulnerability and moral injury (Moral Injury). This negotiation effectively dismantled the binary “hero/victim” stereotype (21), allowing for a construction of veteran identity that encompasses both professional duty and psychological burden. Thus, heroism in the “Hero in the Living Room” model is not a self-evident trait but a contested narrative authority reclaimed by the combatant in the face of simplistic militaristic glorification.

The second finding, “From Shock to Action,” illuminated the transformation of the civilian community. The literature extensively discusses the impact of soldiers' stories on civilians as a tool for creating empathy and understanding the complexity of war (45, 46). This study strengthens these claims but extends the scope to the concept of active resilience. Study participants described how hosting and listening extricated them from a position of helplessness and granted them an active role in the war effort. This process aligns with Rathnayake's (33) model, suggesting that engagement with narratives of sacrifice and resilience strengthens community cohesion and intergenerational solidarity.

In the context of ‘Gibor BaSalon', the community undergoes a transformation from a passive ‘audience' into an active partner in creating a healing space. This dynamic can be conceptualized through Bion's (47) theory of “Container/Contained”: the community functions as a ‘container' that receives the raw and unbearable sensory impressions of the combatant (‘Beta Elements') and processes them through empathetic listening into a meaningful narrative (‘Alpha Function'). Here, the community is not merely listening but performing an active psychological transformation that enables the conversion of unprocessable horror into logical and sequential thought.

Furthermore, the intimate domestic space creates a ‘Holding Environment' in the spirit of Winnicott's (48) teachings. The living room becomes a protected space allowing the soldier to experience controlled regression and express contents of fear and fragility, knowing that the human environment around him will not shatter in the face of pain but will ‘hold' it for him. Thus, the community's role goes beyond mere listening and becomes an active psychological function (Active Container), enabling the integration of the traumatic experience.

These findings correspond with the “Social Cure” approach (49), which asserts that group belonging and identification serve as a psychological resource protecting against stress. The current study emphasizes that the civilian transformation is not only personal but represents a reconstruction of Collective Efficacy in the face of shared trauma. The civilians' transition to a mode of “doing for the soldier” allows them to regain the sense of control and meaning lost on October 7th, thereby strengthening overall social resilience.

The central contribution of this study lies in the third theme-Reciprocity. Professional literature discusses the “Civil-Military Gap” and the difficulties of soldiers' reintegration into a “post-heroic” society that struggles to digest violence (22, 50). The “Gibor BaSalon” initiative is revealed in this study as a critical bridge narrowing this gap in real-time.

The findings point to an Emotional Exchange. To illustrate this unique dynamic, a circular model of resilience resource exchange can be drawn:

The soldiers provide the community with a sense of physical security and national meaning (as argued by 20, regarding the link between public support and soldier motivation), while the community provides the soldiers with “normality,” a civilian anchor, and social recognition. This is a living example of the claim by Mamon et al. (51) that narrative interventions improve soldiers' perception of civilians as a supportive factor. Moreover, the study shows how a renewed collective identity is formed (29), where the boundaries between “Front” and “Home Front” blur in favor of a shared narrative of coping. Sharing stories within the domestic space-rather than in alienated state ceremonies-is what enables mutual healing and the creation of a shared “We” during a crisis.

In conclusion, the “Gibor BaSalon” initiative demonstrates how a community-based narrative intervention can serve as a powerful mechanism for mutual healing. While existing literature often focuses on clinical treatment for soldiers or community resilience separately, this study shows how the two dimensions are intertwined. The soldier's healing depends on the community's ability to listen, and the community's resilience depends on its ability to take part in the soldier's narrative.

The findings of this study necessitate a reflexive examination of narrative boundaries. The consensus on “avoiding political judgment” within the “Hero in the Living Room” initiative functions simultaneously as a containment mechanism and a narrative boundary. While this depoliticization enables an intimate connection within the “shared traumatic reality” of Israeli society, it also forecloses the impact of war on populations outside the in-group. As Rothberg (52) suggests through the concept of the “implicated subject,” the soldier is not merely a victim of trauma or a hero of action, but a subject operating within a broader conflict context. Acknowledging this limitation is essential for interpreting the constructs of heroism and reciprocity in this study; the initiative enables the expression and validation of the lived experience within a protected and containing space, even if it is politically limited by definition, as the “narrative repair” occurs within a framework that pre-defines its moral horizons.

This study has several limitations that should be considered:

Based on the findings, it is recommended that mental health professional, the military, and welfare systems consider the following steps:

In conclusion, “Gibor BaSalon” is more than a social initiative; it is a living human laboratory for collective healing. In an era where wars become mass trauma events, the community's ability to open its doors and its heart and become an active partner in processing memory is a cornerstone of both national and personal resilience.