<p>This article introduces the humanitarian passive as a machine-mediated syntactic pattern through which civilian suffering is made visible while responsibility is made grammatically optional. In AI-generated conflict discourse, victims, destruction, displacement, sanctions, shortages, and humanitarian catastrophe can remain fully describable, while perpetrators, institutional agents, military actors, sanctioning powers, platform authorities, and decision chains are reduced, displaced, or omitted. The result is not the erasure of suffering, but the weakening of the grammatical pathways through which suffering remains attributable to responsible actors. The paper defines this weakening as responsibility loss: the measurable decline of syntactic traceability between civilian harm and the agents, institutions, states, military systems, or geopolitical alliances that produce it. Responsibility loss does not require proving intention, censorship, conspiracy, or ideological coordination. It can be examined as a formal effect of summary compression, platform moderation, safety constraints, geopolitical framing, and machine-generated neutrality. Palestine functions as the central test case because it exposes the conflict between visibility and attribution with unusual intensity. AI systems may recognize humanitarian suffering, civilian death, displacement, infrastructure collapse, bombardment, and crisis conditions while simultaneously avoiding or diluting the grammatical assignment of agency. Iran extends the model to sanctioned suffering, where civilian harm may be described through the neutral grammar of shortages, economic hardship, restricted access, escalation, regional instability, and security concern, while the actors and systems imposing sanctions, financial restrictions, diplomatic pressure, or military threat become syntactically less visible. The article therefore treats Palestine and Iran not as identical cases, but as distinct sites of asymmetric visibility. In Palestine, responsibility loss appears through the grammar of direct violence, occupation, bombardment, displacement, and humanitarian catastrophe. In Iran, it appears through the grammar of sanctions, isolation, overcompliance, diplomatic pressure, securitization, and indirect civilian harm. Together, these cases show how dominant-power discourse can preserve the visibility of suffering while weakening the grammatical conditions under which responsibility can be named.&nbsp;</p>