As a longtime member of the American Psychological Association’s Society for Study of Peace, Conflict, and Violence (Division 48: Peace Psychology), I was heartened when the division’s leadership— following a special meeting and vote on November 1st—issued this brief statement in support of a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza (emphasis in original):
We, as peace psychologists, join the calls from all around the world for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.
We join the United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres in his appeal “for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, together with the unconditional release of hostages and the delivery of relief at a level corresponding to the dramatic needs of the people in Gaza, where a humanitarian catastrophe is unfolding in front of our eyes.”
We, as peace psychologists, remind the world that there is no military solution to the current crisis. There can be no peace without justice.
We urge leaders around the world to call for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire to end the indescribable suffering and indiscriminate killing in Gaza.
Many distinguished international health and human rights groups—including the United Nations, Amnesty International, Oxfam International, Doctors Without Borders, the World Health Organization, and over 200 other organizations—had already called for an urgent and immediate humanitarian ceasefire. And it’s easy to understand why. Responding to Hamas’s horrific attacks on October 7th that brutally killed hundreds of Israeli civilians (with over 200 hostages), Israel has unleashed a devastating bombardment and assault on Gaza. The death toll to date is staggering: more than 15,000 Palestinians have been killed, including over 6,000 children. Thousands more remain missing, and the looming risk of disease imperils countless others. At the same time, essential civilian infrastructure—from hospitals to schools to entire neighborhoods—has been leveled to the ground.
Causing further distress is the fact that key Israeli officials have made disturbing statements of their own, suggesting that neither the grievous loss of life nor the massive destruction has been inadvertent. The Israeli Prime Minister vowed “mighty vengeance” and described the conflict as “a struggle between the children of light and the children of darkness, between humanity and the law of the jungle.” Israel’s President said “It is an entire nation out there that is responsible.” A spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces explained that “the emphasis is on damage, not accuracy.” And the Israeli Defense Minister announced “a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed.”
Division 48’s leadership is not alone among peace psychologists in endorsing a ceasefire, the release of hostages, and the urgent delivery of relief. The International Network for Peace Psychology has also published a statement that includes this: “We urge adherence to humanitarian law and international human rights law by all parties to the conflict. What is urgently needed is not only an end to the bloodshed, but a commitment by all parties to a negotiated just peace that acknowledges unequal power and brings an end to structural violence and oppression as well as killing.”
In this context, one might have expected that the ceasefire statement from leaders of the APA’s peace psychology division would be uncontroversial, and perhaps even deemed worthy of emulation. After all, the division describes its own vision as “the development of sustainable societies through the prevention of destructive conflict and violence, the amelioration of its consequences, the empowerment of individuals, and the building of cultures of peace and global community.” But while numerous Division 48 members have expressed appreciation for the statement, division leaders have regrettably encountered opposition and obstruction on two fronts.
First, a few Division 48 members have sought to discredit the ceasefire statement, the division leaders who voted for it, and the process that produced it. The most publicly vocal of these critics has seemingly suggested that supporting a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza is disrespectful and antisemitic; that the vote to endorse a ceasefire reflected bias because a majority of the division leaders who supported it come from Muslim-majority countries; and that Israel’s ongoing assault on Gaza is a just war that will ultimately save lives and reduce suffering. He also apparently threatened to file an ethics complaint against the Division 48 president unless she offered a public apology for the statement’s creation and arranged to have it removed from the division’s website (which she has now done).
Second, the APA has an expectation that its divisions will obtain permission for any statement they want to issue, to ensure that it doesn’t violate APA bylaws, rules, or policies. But given that the entire Division 48 statement (above) is only five sentences long, it’s quite troubling that this approval process has already taken weeks and apparently still hasn’t been completed. This kind of delay seems all the more unwarranted in light of the fact that the statement is largely a direct endorsement of the United Nations Secretary-General’s call for a ceasefire, release of hostages, and delivery of relief—and the APA routinely promotes its status as an accredited NGO at the UN.
It bears emphasizing here that this conflict within Division 48 could have been forestalled if the APA itself had stepped forward and publicly joined the call for a humanitarian ceasefire (and it’s not too late for the APA to do so). But after issuing an October 11th statement that condemned Hamas’s attacks and expressed concern for “the physical safety and mental health of the millions of Israelis and Palestinians affected by this growing surge in violence,” the APA has gone silent over the past several weeks—while the daily battering of Gaza decidedly has not. I can’t help wondering what this means for the APA’s avowed commitment to “respect and promote human rights.”
One can certainly argue that a ceasefire endorsement from the APA’s peace psychology division—or even from the APA as a whole—isn’t going to meaningfully impact conditions on the ground halfway around the globe. Some might even deem it a proverbial “tempest in a teapot.” But sometimes silence can border on complicity, and it can cast a long shadow on a group’s purpose, integrity, and legitimacy going forward.
In a different context—the APA’s failure to firmly oppose the involvement of psychologists in the abuse of war-on-terror detainees—I’ve highlighted the crucial role of professional associations and other civil society organizations in speaking out in support of human rights and human welfare. This is exactly what Division 48 leaders have tried to do by endorsing the urgent and growing call for a humanitarian ceasefire. That their efforts have been rebuffed is a very discouraging sign. If not now, when?