Selective empathy and the genocide in Gaza: the silence of health and academic associations

Genocide is one of the most extreme forms of global health crisis. The ongoing mass atrocities in Gaza have resulted in a sharp decline in life expectancy, the systematic destruction of healthcare infrastructure and the highest number of medical personnel killed in any conflict ever recorded. While multiple human rights organisations have recognised these conditions as genocide, major health and academic associations have responded inconsistently. In response to widespread institutional inaction, an open letter was launched to urge academic and health associations to recognise the genocide in Gaza. This initiative gathered over 15,000 signatures from academics, health professionals and members of the public. It also prompted new statements of recognition from several major public health bodies, including the European Public Health Alliance, the European Public Health Association, and the World Federation of Public Health Associations. Endorsements from national societies and local healthcare authorities in Italy also demonstrated the effectiveness of public health advocacy in confronting moral silence. Nevertheless, many medical and public health societies, particularly in the United States, have either remained silent or issued neutral statements. There were stark differences in the language and moral framing of responses to Gaza compared to those to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reflecting a phenomenon of “selective empathy”, whereby institutional solidarity varies according to national, ethnic, or geopolitical alignment. The silence or equivocation of many health and academic institutions in the face of genocide undermines public trust and the ethical foundations of global health. Addressing this requires global health organisations to move beyond neutrality and engage in principled advocacy to reaffirm their moral and scientific duty to defend human life and health without discrimination.