NOTE: This is an update on events I’ve previously described, first HERE and then HERE.
On October 7, 2023, over 1,000 Israelis died at the hands of Hamas militants and 200 more were taken hostage. Immediately thereafter, Israel began an unrelenting bombardment and siege of Gaza in a military campaign that’s been condemned—almost universally—as disproportionate and indiscriminate. At the same time, leading Israeli government officials issued calls for vengeance and collective punishment against the Palestinian people. To date, over 26,000 Gazans have been killed (most of them women and children), tens of thousands more have been injured, hundreds of thousands now face starvation, and nearly all the residents of Gaza have been displaced from their homes (most of which have been destroyed, along with most schools and medical facilities). And just last week, the International Court of Justice ruled that it’s plausible Israel is perpetrating genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
Back in late October, several leaders of the American Psychological Association’s Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, and Violence (Division 48: Peace Psychology) drafted and endorsed a short statement, with the intention of having the division join the worldwide call for a ceasefire in Gaza. Their statement was entirely consistent with the division’s commitment to “the advancement of peace, non-violent conflict resolution, reconciliation, and the prevention of war and other forms of destructive conflict.” It highlighted the U.N. Secretary General’s own appeal for a humanitarian ceasefire, the release of hostages, and the delivery of relief to Gaza in order to curtail “an unfolding catastrophe.” It emphasized that there’s no military solution to the crisis, and that there can be no peace without justice. And it urged world leaders to help end the unimaginable suffering in Gaza.
Of course, nobody in the division imagined that a ceasefire statement issued by the leadership of a small community of peace psychologists would miraculously stop the ongoing assault. But active members, like myself, were pleased to see this message of solidarity in support of urgent efforts to save lives. We didn’t want the only APA division focused on peace to be a silent bystander as the signs pointing to possible genocide grew more ominous every day.
What we didn’t anticipate was the vehemence with which a few outspoken division members would oppose this ceasefire statement. They described supporters of the statement—sometimes individually and at other times collectively—as dishonest, as antisemitic extremists with a “totalitarian worldview,” as “useful idiots” for Hamas’s cause, and as seeking to eradicate Israel and complete the “Final Solution.” These accusations were outrageous.
These critics also demanded that the statement be taken down from the division’s website (it was), and they apparently took steps to discourage the APA’s leadership from approving the statement’s publication and dissemination. Now, after weeks of baffling delays while this five-sentence statement was under their review, the APA’s board of directors has finally weighed in.
First, we’ve been told that APA rules prohibit the peace psychology division’s executive committee from issuing a statement in its own name—despite a near-unanimous committee vote (which was reaffirmed in a separate vote just last month). This is perplexing, because there are numerous public policy-oriented statements currently available online from committees that are part of other APA divisions. Wherein lies the difference here?
Second, we’ve also been instructed that, if the division chooses to move forward in accordance with specified APA rules, the text of the ceasefire statement must be revised so that the call for a humanitarian ceasefire doesn’t focus its attention on Gaza alone—despite the staggering devastation there. Since the ceasefire statement would include a disclaimer indicating that it doesn’t represent the position of the APA, why are APA board members dictating what language the executive committee may use?
In light of the constraints imposed by the APA, it’s unclear what lies ahead for the statement, now written over three months ago. And for those who might ask, “How can peace psychologists not support a humanitarian ceasefire???”, the answer is simple: the overwhelming majority of us do. That won’t change. Individually and together, we’ll find ways to contribute to the urgent pursuit of a ceasefire and just peace.