Stockholm syndrome has become a buzzword for feeling threatened, but it’s far more than that. It’s a complicated theoretical psychological response where victims, trapped in extreme and often violent situations, start to develop emotional connections with their captors.
This bond can show up as sympathy, loyalty, or even a defense of the captors’ actions – not because of genuine agreement, but as an unconscious survival mechanism. The mind, under relentless trauma and threat, blurs the boundaries between victim and aggressor in order to tolerate the dangers.
In Gaza, United Nations workers (and to be clear, this is about UN workers) appear to be facing immense pressure daily. Their mandate is to deliver humanitarian aid, provide medical care, and advocate for civilians caught in a brutal conflict.
Yet, beneath these outwardly noble objectives lies a psychological trap. Living and working amid the constant presence and influence of Hamas – a group that controls the territory and advertises themselves as both protector and oppressor – wears down even the most neutral individuals.
Over time, the emotional and physical environment shapes perceptions, sometimes nudging workers toward empathy or at least reluctant acceptance of the group’s authority.
This isn’t about accusing specific aid workers of betrayal, though there might be good cause for that; it’s about understanding how the human mind adapts under siege. Take, for instance, reports from some UN personnel who have expressed frustration or outright hostility toward Israel while seeming to downplay or omit Hamas’s role in initiating the conflict on October 7 (and four times prior).
This pattern mirrors classic Stockholm syndrome dynamics, where the captive’s worldview shifts under pressure to align more with their captors. One recurring and notable example is the controversy over the UN’s Gaza school incident in 2014, where blame was disproportionately assigned to Israeli forces despite evidence of Hamas operating within the vicinity of schools and hospitals, as it continues to do.
United Nations reports lack balance, affecting the aid situation on the ground
The UN’s subsequent reports lack balance, fueling reasonable accusations that its workers had become psychologically influenced by the realities on the ground.
The United Nations’ reporting on Israel has long been criticized for its bias. Israel’s near-universal rejection of UN observers’ reports stems from an ongoing perception that these reports are always skewed against it.
For example, during these conflicts in Gaza, UN agencies continue to release casualty figures or narratives that emphasize Israeli actions while minimizing Hamas’s provocations or the use of civilian areas for military purposes and tunnel access.
They also ignore that released hostages have been jailed not just in the tunnels under Gaza but in the homes of Gazan civilians who claim to be non-combatants. This selective framing raises questions about how the constant exposure to Hamas’s dominance – and the daily necessity of navigating its control – might shape the perspectives of those supposedly neutral observers.
The United Nations, as an organization, through agencies like UNRWA and OCHA, has for many years consistently shown a troubling bias on the ground in Gaza, shielding Hamas and complicating Israeli military operations. UN facilities have repeatedly been used by Hamas to store weapons and operate tunnels while the UN condemns Israeli strikes on these sites without acknowledging their militarization.
UN reports paint Israeli soldiers as aggressors while downplaying or ignoring Hamas’s tactics, fueling international pressure on Israel to halt operations and leaving Israeli troops vulnerable and constrained. This one-sided narrative erodes the IDF’s legitimacy and morale, even as Israeli soldiers take extraordinary measures to minimize civilian harm.
The UN bias has direct operational consequences. Israeli forces face heightened risks because they must fight around UN-designated sites used by terrorists, and UN-mandated humanitarian pauses often give Hamas time to regroup.
The UN has failed to advocate for Israeli hostages or wounded soldiers, further deepening the divide in how true victims and combatants are portrayed. Until the UN addresses this systemic partiality and prioritizes true neutrality, it will continue to undermine Israel’s efforts to combat terror and protect its soldiers while enabling Hamas’s exploitation of humanitarian institutions.
Still, this question goes beyond UN internal politics; it strikes at the core of psychological survival. How do the constant threats and the imperative to coexist with a hostile power reshape the worldview of those expected to remain impartial?
At what point does the instinct to survive morph into emotional alignment with the forces perpetuating the conflict? For UN workers in Gaza who may not have the institutional bias initially, these are not abstract dilemmas but lived realities, ones that leave invisible scars deeper than any physical wound.
Understanding this particular psychological complexity is crucial if we hope to assess the situation in Gaza honestly. It calls for the UN to be more responsible, provide more training for its workers, and rotate the workers out of Gaza every few months.
It also urges the UN to publicly provide a more nuanced conversation about how trauma and coercion influence humanitarian work and how these unseen pressures can sway narratives in ways that may unintentionally perpetuate the cycle of conflict.
Dr. Michael J Salamon is a psychologist who specializes in trauma and abuse. He is the director of ADC Psychological Services in Netanya and Hewlett, NY, and is on staff at Northwell, New Hyde Park, NY. Louis Libin is an expert in military strategies and innovation and advises and teaches military innovation, wireless systems, and emergency communications at military colleges and agencies. He founded a consulting group for emergency management, cybersecurity, IP, and communications.