In the early days of the Gaza-Israel conflict, images of devastation filled screens and newspapers around the world. Hospitals overwhelmed, children buried beneath rubble, and humanitarian corridors collapsing — these were not just headlines, but human lives entangled in a geopolitical crisis.
As the conflict escalated, much of the global medical community found itself at a moral crossroads. Physicians and health professionals from across disciplines took to social media, authored op-eds, and organized vigils. But when it came to official statements from the medical and surgical societies recognized by the Council of Medical Specialty Societies (CMSS), the response was fragmented — and in many cases, conspicuously absent.
This article takes a closer look at how these specialty societies chose to respond — or not respond — to the Gaza-Israel conflict, and what that reveals about the intersection of medicine, ethics, and politics in an increasingly interconnected world.
The Role of Medical Societies in Times of Crisis
Medical and surgical specialty societies serve a crucial role in shaping professional standards, ethics, and education for physicians. These organizations — from the American College of Physicians to the American Academy of Pediatrics — often weigh in on public health emergencies, natural disasters, and major humanitarian crises.
Historically, these societies have issued statements on issues ranging from the opioid epidemic to racial injustice. Their words carry weight. They signal to members what values and priorities the profession should uphold.
But when it comes to international conflict — particularly one as politically and emotionally charged as Gaza and Israel — that moral clarity becomes far less consistent.
A Landscape of Uneven Responses
Of the more than 45 member societies in the CMSS, very few issued formal statements regarding the Gaza-Israel conflict. Among those that did, the tone and content varied widely.
Some issued general humanitarian appeals, calling for the protection of civilians, medical neutrality, and the sanctity of health infrastructure — without assigning blame or taking sides.
Others made no statement at all, choosing silence as a form of neutrality — or perhaps, discomfort.
And a small number of societies issued explicit condemnations or endorsements, leading to intense internal backlash from physician members who felt either excluded or unsupported in their views.
This inconsistency has prompted an important question: Should medical societies speak at all in moments of global conflict? And if so, how?
Navigating Neutrality and Moral Responsibility
Silence can be strategic. It can also be deafening.
Many societies that refrained from commenting on the Gaza-Israel conflict cited a desire to remain focused on healthcare, not geopolitics. But for physicians of Palestinian, Israeli, or Arab descent — and for those who treat war refugees or engage in global health — these distinctions are not always feasible.
Conflict is not just political. It is public health at its most visceral. Access to clean water, functioning hospitals, electricity in operating rooms — these are medical issues. When physicians see children treated on bloodied floors or colleagues killed in hospital bombings, the demand for moral clarity becomes inescapable.
In this context, neutrality can appear as abdication.
Yet, for professional societies, making political statements carries risk. Members come from diverse backgrounds and ideologies. A poorly worded statement can fracture membership, incite public backlash, or even threaten funding and partnerships.
As one society executive put it, “We are caught between our mission and our membership.”
The American Exception: Why U.S. Societies Struggle to Respond
American medical societies often exhibit a more cautious approach than their international counterparts. In Europe and Canada, national physician associations issued strong, clear statements on the conflict, often criticizing attacks on healthcare infrastructure and violations of international humanitarian law.
In contrast, U.S.-based societies remained largely muted — especially those with significant institutional partnerships, government relationships, or a large, ideologically diverse membership.
This hesitancy may stem from a broader cultural reluctance in American medicine to engage in international advocacy unless directly tied to domestic clinical practice.
But the world has changed. Physicians now engage in real-time dialogue across borders. Patients and communities expect their healthcare leaders to speak out — especially when medical ethics are at stake.
When Statements Divide
The few societies that did issue statements faced polarized responses. In some cases, members called for resignations of board members. Others launched open letters, either demanding stronger condemnation of attacks on Gaza or arguing that statements unfairly targeted Israel.
These controversies reveal a deeper truth: there is no consensus within medicine on how to address geopolitical conflict. And perhaps there never will be.
But the absence of consensus should not prevent action. In moments of humanitarian crisis, it is possible — and necessary — to take a stand on core principles:
- Protecting civilians
- Preserving healthcare infrastructure
- Upholding international law
- Defending the safety of healthcare workers
These are not political positions. They are medical imperatives.
Reimagining the Role of Medical Societies
So where do we go from here?
First, societies must recognize that silence is not always safe — especially in the digital age. Inaction can be interpreted as complicity, especially when atrocities unfold in full view of the world.
Second, statements must be thoughtfully constructed, grounded in medical ethics and international humanitarian law, not partisan talking points.
Third, societies should engage their membership before, during, and after making statements. That means listening sessions, internal debate, and transparency in how decisions are made.
Finally, there is a role for collaborative statements. Rather than each society crafting its own position, coalitions of societies could issue joint humanitarian statements, lending broader legitimacy and reducing the burden on individual organizations.
Final Reflections
The Gaza-Israel conflict has tested the boundaries of what medical societies believe they should say — and what their members expect them to say.
It is not just a political issue. It is a humanitarian crisis with direct implications for the practice and ethics of medicine.
As physicians, our duty is not just to the science of healing, but to the ethics of care, even — and especially — when that care is tested by war, politics, and public scrutiny.
In that space where medicine meets morality, silence is not neutral. It is a statement all its own.
