The Jerusalem Post - The Jerusalem Post Magazine
Is the Red Cross really neutral on Israel?
Jewish distrust of the ‘middle man’ organization – accused of refusing to deliver vital medications to hostages – dates back to the Holocaust
Among the many, many traumatizing images Israelis are coming to terms with following Oct. 7 are those of the release and transfer of 105 mostly women and children hostages from Hamas captivity. Turned over into the hands of International Committee of the Red Cross staff, waiting to transfer them to ICRC vehicles and on to waiting Egyptian and Israeli officials, fear and stress pervaded as the newly released civilians were surrounded by armed Hamas terrorists and crowds of shouting Palestinians.
The hostages were visibly tense as they made their way the short distance from Hamas vehicles to the white ICRC Land Rovers emblazoned with a red cross on their sides, which would take them across Gaza to the Rafah crossing, first to Egyptian security forces, where they were handed over to the IDF.
One hostage, Rimon Kirscht, notably stared down a Hamas terrorist and then, as she was approached by an ICRC worker, apparently exchanged some words of dismissal. Another hostage, however, emotionally hugged all the ICRC workers who had transported them once they reached the crossing.
“We are just glad we were able to move them from one place that was not safe to a place that is much more safe,” Jason Straziuso, ICRC global media chief, said in an interview with NBC on November 24, when 24 hostages were released during the implementation of the first stage of the agreement that also involved the transfer of Palestinian women and male teenage prisoners from Israeli jails into Palestinian hands. “Our part
was the neutral intermediary, that trusted middle man that is a vital aspect of this operation, to be trusted by Hamas and to be trusted by Israel to safely carry this out.”
But for a large majority of Israelis – with the ICRC’s failure during the Holocaust to do anything on behalf of Jews in concentration camps still fresh in their memories – the terms “trusted middle man” and “neutral intermediary” are ridiculed, and they accuse the ICRC of doing virtually little to nothing to secure the release of the hostages in Hamas’s hands, ascertain their whereabouts, let alone visit them or ensure that they had received medicines sent in an agreement mediated by Qatar in mid-January.
“Throughout the years since the day of its inception, the Red Cross never [stepped forward for the Jews] or the Israelis, even during the Holocaust,” charged Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, founder of Shurat HaDin-Israel Law Center, who, in a legal demand letter signed by more than 1,200 attorneys, has accused the ICRC of taking only superficial steps toward protecting the hostages. They slammed the ICRC for what she says is a potential breach of integrity by its affiliated Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS), for allowing the transport of Hamas terrorists in its ambulances.
“Even during the Holocaust, they refrained from visiting Jews in concentration camps,” she stressed.
SARAH DAVIES, whose title is ICRC spokeswoman in Israel and the Occupied Territories, said she was unable to comment on the accusation against the PRCS because “while they are part of the ICRC Movement, they are a separate entity, and they would need to be the ones to give comment on this.”
However, she told the Magazine: “The Palestine Red Crescent Society has been providing ambulance and other core healthcare services in extremely dangerous circumstances in Gaza since the fighting escalated, caring for the many people wounded in the conflict. With the little medical resources that currently exist in Gaza, the PRCS is focused on providing life-saving support to the civilians who have been impacted by this escalation.
“Under international humanitarian law, ambulances, medical personnel, and health facilities must be protected and used only to transport or treat the wounded.”
In December Shurat HaDin, on behalf of the hostages’ fam
ilies, filed an unprecedented lawsuit against the ICRC for “not fulfilling its mandate and moral duty to visit the kidnapped Israelis held in Gaza, assure their well-being, and fight for their release.”
“We see this as a decades-old pattern with the Red Cross. They did nothing to assist IDF soldier Gilad Schalit, who had been held for five years by Hamas in Gaza. On its website, the Red Cross apologizes for failing to assist Jews in the Nazi concentration camps in the 1940s. The belated apology rings hollow... The agency alleges it maintains a special place in international law and under the Geneva Convention, yet it repeatedly fails to act for Jews,” Darshan-Leitner charged on December 27 in the San Diego Jewish World.
Echoing what many Israelis have said about the ICRC role, Darshan-Leitner said it “became just a taxi company to drive the hostages once they get out.
“They claim that Hamas doesn’t let them in, but I don’t see any request from their side; I don’t see any demands to Hamas,” she stated. “Furthermore, they are not working in a vacuum. It is an international organization established by the Geneva Convention, which all countries signed; so if they want, they have a lot of leverage on the UN and on other countries to force Hamas to let them in. I don’t see them approach the UN. I don’t see the UN coming up with resolutions against Hamas.”
ICRC said it was “surprised and saddened” by the lawsuit, which reflects a “regrettable misunderstanding” of what the ICRC does, how it operates, and the nature of its humanitarian mandate under international humanitarian law.
Davies, who is based in Tel Aviv, said the ICRC has been and is consistently involved in behind-the-scenes discussions with various groups about the hostages in Gaza. It has said “multiple times” that hostage-taking is prohibited from an international law perspective, and has called for the immediate release of the captives. Failing that, it is calling for visits, she said, similar to those it conducts in other conflict areas – checking on the hostages’ welfare and well-being, providing medication when needed, and reestablishing contact with family members.
“Though... it may seem that we are not doing anything, I can reassure you that we are constantly working behind the scenes... Our network is constantly reminding them what we are asking for and what needs to happen,” she said. To come out with any overtly political statement would not only risk losing its neutral status but would also jeopardize its work here, as well as in other parts of the world, she added.
Neutrality? Action?
On its website, the organization has made considerable effort to explain its role in the hostage situation and its stance.
As a neutral party meant to be trusted by both parties in a conflict, the ICRC is not involved in any of the political negotiations, Davies explained. Its role is that once the parties have negotiated and reached an agreement, when firm details are worked out it steps in as that “trusted organization” that can go between one and the other, as can be seen in prior hostage situations.
It is difficult, particularly in this day and age of instant information, for people to grasp that the ICRC is not an organization that always comes out publicly about its work, she said. It is crucial, she added, that armed groups and governments feel they can trust that what they say in their discussions with the ICRC stays behind closed doors.
It should be taken into account that with Gaza currently an ongoing conflict zone, it is almost impossible to attempt any of that, such as visiting hostages or delivering medications – or even ascertaining whether and/or confirming this has taken place at all.
The release of the hostages is one of the organization’s top priorities, she said, acknowledging the difficulty for families not to be able to communicate with their loved ones or not knowing where they are. Still, she said, the ICRC is unable to release the details of those discussions, though this may not be a popular stance. However, she said, it has learned through “decades of experience” that this is the best way to get the results it hopes for.
It is not in it for social media “likes,” she said.
“From day one, we have publicly and repeatedly called to have access to the hostages and for their immediate release. We have also been in contact with all parties to the conflict to push for their release and have advocated, among others, to be able to check on their medical state and provide them with their required medicines. We also continue to request that they be able to share a message with their families.
“Families of the hostages are enduring unimaginable suffering as they wait for news from their loved ones. We acknowledge their expectations and requests for us to help.
“However, as much as we wish we could, we cannot force the parties to tell us the location of the hostages and to let us visit them. The agreement of the concerned parties is an essential precondition for the ICRC to carry out its work,” Davies said.
Several Israeli families who met with ICRC representatives in an attempt to get urgent medicines delivered to their loved ones held hostage – including the family of 84-year-old Elma Avraham, who was released during the ceasefire; and Doron
‘The ICRC became just a taxi company to drive the hostages once they get out’
Steinbrecher’s parents – decried what they called the organization’s refusal to help. However, ICRC’s Davies noted they are unable to deliver the medicines as long as no agreement allowing for that transfer is reached between Israel and Hamas.
“We know that [transfering medicine] is a huge worry for many family members of those held hostage, and we understand how devastating it is not to know if they are receiving their needed medications,” said Davies. “We reiterate that at this time, we do not have access to the hostages to ensure the proper delivery and facilitation of medications, which we will have ready in hand should an agreement for this be reached.
“We continue calling for the unconditional release and access to the hostages, as we’ve done from the first day, and we are ready to carry out those visits.”
THOUGH ITS work may not always seem significant to Israelis, who “are living through this terrible situation,” its focus is always to make a difference, as could be seen in its facilitation of the release and transfer of the 109 hostages, Davies explained.
“People assume we are not working on this, but we are consistently [working] at the highest level of our organization, all the way down to our delegation here in person... to see that results are achieved and these people can be reunited with their families, which is really such an important part of this.”
It is very understandable that people are emotionally heightened at this time, Davies said, but likening the ICRC to a taxi service is a “misconception.”
“What they have seen is very much a fraction of what takes place. These operations are incredibly complex. They involve multiple international staff, including medical doctors,” said Davies.
“To very simply drive across a war zone in the dark to meet an armed group, then transfer the hostages out of the armed conflict area, even if the hostilities have ceased at this time, is very challenging. Roads are destroyed, there is rubble and concern of unexploded ordnance, so there are many details and logistics, and the timing has to be precise.
“You are very much the conduit between two warring parties who do not trust each other, and there are a lot of heightened emotions and stress.”
Indeed, Eviatar Manor, who served as Israeli ambassador in Geneva (2012-2016), where the ICRC is based, said the personal danger in which the ICRC personnel placed themselves to facilitate the transfer, with no weapons, encircled by a mob of people shouting “Death to Israel,” should not be minimized. Without these “cab drivers,” he emphasized, the
exchange would not have been possible.
“It is easy to say they are taxi drivers, but these drivers could have also been attacked and killed,” he said. “I am not sure there are many who, in a crisis, would be happy to be in situation like that between two warring sides.”
ICRC and antisemitism
In addition to an official apology the ICRC issued in 2007 for its failure during the Holocaust, in 2015 on the commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the liberation of the camps, then-ICRC-president Peter Maurer said: “In institutional terms, the ICRC also learned some hard lessons. It had failed to protect civilians, and most notably, the Jews persecuted and murdered by the Nazi regime; it had failed to understand the uniqueness and inhumanity by responding to the outrageous with standard procedures; it had looked on helplessly and silently, not really trying – certainly not hard enough – to live up to the principle of humanity.
“The ICRC failed because it drew inexcusably false conclusions from perfectly valid observations. It failed as a humanitarian organization because it had lost its moral compass. This failure has become an intrinsic part of our institutional history.”
In a blog post at the time of the anniversary, the ICRC qualified it as “the greatest failure in the history of the ICRC” and acknowledged its “impotence and the mistakes it made in dealing with Nazi persecution and genocide, lacking decisiveness in taking steps to aid the victims of Nazi persecution.”
“For the ICRC, the most appropriate way to honor the victims and survivors of the Holocaust is to fight for a world in which the human dignity of every man, woman, and child is respected without any reservations,” added Maurer.
Nevertheless, Darshan-Leitner said ICRC claims of impartiality are nothing more than “to not do anything for Jews.”
“Today they regret it. Today on their website they have a big apology for not visiting Jews in the camps, so now once again they are saying the same thing about [the Gaza hostage situation] being an internal issue.
“I know it is hard to understand, but read my lips: They hate Jews,” said Darshan-Leitner. “I can say that openly. They hate Jews, like the rest of the international organizations. It is a fact; what can you do? You can’t deny it; you can’t be politically correct. You have an international organization doing nothing for the Jews or for the Israelis. It is pure antisemitism.”
Davies said the ICRC rejects antisemitism in all its forms.
“We have acknowledged our failure and our regret of this failure during the Holocaust, and we know it is our greatest failure as an organization,” she said. “There is nothing that we can do now to change the past; we can’t alleviate the pain and horror millions have suffered. But we can learn from these failures and dedicate ourselves to consistently put at the center the protection of civilians under humanitarian law. That is what we work for.”
She noted that the Fourth Geneva Convention, which sets out the protections of civilians during time of war, which Israel ratified in 1951, did not exist before World War II. “After World War II it was seen clearly that there was a gap, which is what led to so many people suffering.”
In fact, Jews’ suffering during the Holocaust was very much an influencing factor in the demand for protection of civilians in the Fourth Geneva Convention, she said.
For Manor, charges of antisemitism against the ICRC are, again, “the easy way out.”
“To say someone is antisemitic I think is the easy way out. The people I dealt with were not. I can’t tell you what came after,” said Manor, who was in Geneva during the 2014 Gaza war following the kidnapping of three Israeli yeshiva students by Hamas terrorists. “Maurer, my main contact person, I would even say was very, very attentive and forthcoming.”
The issues Manor dealt with on a running basis were usually the occasional incidents between Hamas and
Israel, and from time to time the issue of Palestinian security prisoners.
“Our mission in Geneva was good and fruitful, with the usual conflicts, of course,” Manor said. “The Gaza conflict is not a new one.”
Anti-Israel?
The ICRC may, however, on some level be anti-Israel for whatever reason, Manor allowed.
“Of course, they will deny this and say they are neutral and do not favor one side over another,” he noted.
As signatories to the Fourth Geneva Convention, the role of the ICRC is to visit prisoners of war and ascertain their safety and their needs, but only after agreements are reached by the warring sides, Manor explained, adding that the ICRC does not have a mandate to negotiate agreements or serve as a go-between, but only to implement the agreement reached by both sides.
In the current situation, this was seen once Israel and Hamas reached a negotiated agreement for the hostage release in November, coordinated by other intermediaries, he pointed out. The ICRC was brought in to pick up and implement that agreement, both with the Israeli hostages and the Palestinian prisoners.
Nevertheless, Manor said, he would have hoped to see more empathy for the current hostage situation in the statements issued by the ICRC. “I am not surprised by their inability to reach the hostages to see what state they are in, or [to] go bring them medicine. I am, however, disappointed with the lack of empathy shown by the ICRC, both by the main office in Geneva and the office here,” he affirmed. “I think they could have shown more empathy in their statements also to the suffering of Israel. It is not just the hostages; it is also the displaced Israelis.”
With hundreds of rockets also being launched at Israel, he would have hoped for “stronger and more robust” statements, he said.
“They are a humanitarian organization and can voice concern and encouragement to the sides to reach an agreement or to encourage the go-betweens to be more original in their thinking and to be more active,” Manor said. “This they can do if they choose.”
Davies emphasized that the ability of the ICRC to visit prisoners and captives is solely in the hands of the warring parties, who need to find terms both can agree on for the visits to take place.
At the start of the war, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir canceled the standard family visits permitted for Palestinian security prisoners in Israel, she noted. And with the situation in Gaza still very much an active combat zone, the ICRC’s ability to actually visit Israeli hostages is nearly impossible.
She pointed out that in other areas of the world, such as Syria, the Philippines, and Afghanistan, ICRC staff members have been kidnapped, some remaining in captivity as long as five years or more. Recently, two ICRC staff members held hostage were freed in Mali after a month of captivity.
“We all very much understand [that] individuals who live in conflict zones are emotionally and mentally and physically drained and exhausted,” she added. “And they are living through a situation no one ever should. It is easier to understand people being frustrated or emotional because we see the horror they live through.”
The November hostage release involved four vehicles and eight ICRC personnel, she said, and while during the exchange itself they were focused on reassuring the hostages, following the completion of the exchange some members of the team were very emotional and in tears.
“They did say it was an emotional experience,” she said.