How Does WWII Trauma Shape Today's Apolitical Stance in Humanitarianism?

In introducing the new CHH–Lancet Commission on Health, Conflict, and Forced Displacement, Paul B. Spiegel and colleagues highlight the limitations of apolitical humanitarianism, particularly through their examination of Gaza. The full text of their introduction can be found here.

This underscores the pressing need for a compassionate approach that actively engages with current political realities to address systemic injustices perpetuated by apolitical approaches which to me are clearly a consequence of "the powers that be" being stuck in a "freeze-state" of denial-numb trauma response.

By fearing history and being stuck in a freeze response, they are sowing the seeds that can inadvertently cause it to repeat because their apolitical stances in humanitarianism are slowly pushing us into WW3.

Except this time they will be fulfilling the role of the enemy they stopped previously (Hitler) unless they can learn to step out of their fear-led apolitical approach by employing compassion/humanitarianism to help bring peace.

This requires hope and it requires compassion for them to feel. I hope this newsletter can help people feel again.

Compassion as a Tool: Compassion can serve as a crucial tool in fighting apolitical stances that are currently obscuring the deep-rooted historical and political contexts shaping humanitarian crises. A fear of being and living in compassion is what keeps people stuck in apolitical ways of doing.

This is the trauma response that "the powers that be" seem to be stuck in the collective emotional trauma that brought them together to overcome Hitler but was not addressed or processed later.

Compassion however as a tool to overcome our current humanitarian crises can be illustrated by how Hitler was defeated in the past.

Realization of humanity brought together people from seemingly disparate political stances, and backgrounds to end the mass genocide that Jews were facing at the hands of a terrorist/dictator.

How are the situations in Sudan and Gaza today similar to what Hitler did to Jewish people in Europe?        

It is this same compassion that allows us to confront the complexities of these situations, fostering genuine connections with affected communities beyond being spectators.

Why does compassion bring these same people together when it comes to supporting and fighting for Ukraine but not when it is for Gaza and Sudan?        

Explaining the Tool: When combined with curiosity, compassion becomes a powerful alternative to the current detached approach seen in humanitarian efforts.

Curiosity encourages us to investigate the root causes of suffering that keep people trapped in their emotional past, much like the experiences of Jews in Europe and America.

Meanwhile, compassion urges us to empathize with the distress of everyone.

Together, curiosity and compassion can enable humanitarian actors to challenge epistemic violence—the dismissal of marginalized voices and experiences—which is prevalent in contexts like Gaza and Sudan by acknowledging their own traumatic pasts and keeping them stuck in an intergenerational fawn state with Israel.

Are there any similarities between Russia and Israel in terms of their history with the powers-that-be that fight the former but support the latter?        

Concrete Alternative: To implement a more effective humanitarian response, we must actively integrate curiosity and compassion into our work. This means not only engaging empathetically with those affected but also seeking to understand their realities and challenges.

Humanitarian actors should prioritize listening to marginalized voices and amplifying their stories, creating spaces for dialogue that confront power imbalances.

For compassion to be genuinely realized in these contexts, humanitarian workers must not only empathize with the suffering of individuals but also advocate for justice and systemic change that confronts the power dynamics at play.

Already in Practice: In these cases, an apolitical stance results in humanitarian responses that are either ineffective or contribute to ongoing cycles of violence, as seen today in Gaza and Sudan. In contrast, the humanitarian efforts in Ukraine demonstrate how effective interventions can help break these cycles. Both scenarios utilize similar approaches, highlighting the potential for meaningful change.

This shift -when it comes to Ukraine- not only addresses immediate needs but also works towards dismantling the structures of epistemic violence that have historically marginalized voices in humanitarian crises.

When existing political power structures -no longer useful or rooted in "now"- dictate the terms of assistance, political interests often overshadow human needs.

This shows how apolitical stances are a wilful dehumanization of lives: where power and control are prioritized over life and peace much in line with what led to Hiter's regime of terror and mass genocide in Europe previously.        

For this systemic shift to occur from apolitical to political; discussions emphasizing the importance of acknowledging the historical and political contexts that shape humanitarian crises among all actors in the system are essential.

In Gaza, as in many other contexts influenced by colonial legacies (e.g. Sudan), confronting these underlying issues is paramount as each minuscule unit of time passes.

It is the difference between life and death, a cost that none of us can any longer afford to be complicit with.

In this context, compassion involves not just feeling for those in distress but also advocating for their rights and dignity within a political system that marginalizes their voices and undermines their existence, ultimately determining whether they have a future. This echoes the oppressive aims of Hitler.        

Ultimately, Spiegel and colleagues’ analysis of Gaza reinforces the idea that effective humanitarianism cannot be apolitical. I would like to add to this analysis by saying that political humanitarianism is not possible without processing compassion internally.

In light of this, I would like to call for a compassionate approach that recognizes the interplay of power, history, and human experience through an analysis of the ending of Hitler's regime by framing the current conflicts within this framework.

This will show us where we are going wrong and what we can do to end these humanitarian conflicts once and for all.

By embracing political engagement, we also embrace our empathy.

Many leaders in powerful countries struggle with this because they are trapped in their trauma, leading them to focus solely on their greatest fear: another world war. Inaction through apolitical stances is what will culminate in a world war.

This fear prevents them from moving forward or envisioning a peaceful future. It prevents them from accessing their own compassion and more so: hope.