People are calling out the Red Cross for not doing their part. Why? They’re transporting the hostages once released.
OK, but they still have not:
- Visited all hostages, even the ones not being released.
- Provided medication to hostages who need it.
- Publicly advocated for the unilateral release of innocent hostages held by terrorists in Gaza, naming and shaming the terrorist groups responsible.
They publicly advocate for people in Gaza daily, and call for the protection of medical facilities in Gaza. Yet they refuse to call for Hamas to stop using hospitals and ambulances for terrorist activities, despite concrete evidence this has been occurring for years. On October 7, did they call out the crimes against humanity committed by Hamas, or the paramedics murdered by Hamas in cold blood while trying to save lives (in clear violation of the Geneva Convention)? No. Instead, they called out violence in “Israel and the occupied territories” and posted photos of Gazans by rubble. In their “public requests” for the release of all hostages, they conveniently leave out where the hostages are being held (Gaza) and who is holding these hostages (Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, etc.)
Who calls the Red Cross out on the above neutral silence in the face of atrocities?
The International Committee of the Red Cross itself. Visit https://www.icrc.org/en/document/icrc-wwii-holocaust
Excerpt 1: “In December 1939, the president of the ICRC approached the German Red Cross to arrange for the ICRC delegates to visit the Jews from Vienna who had been deported to Poland. He met with a refusal, as the German authorities did not under any circumstances want to enter into a discussion on the fate of these people.
“From then on, the ICRC opted for a strategy of no longer addressing the question of Jews directly—it did so only in general approaches concerning the victims of mass arrests or deportation, and then it made no reference to their religious affiliation or racial origins, although it was clear that the people in question were, for the most part, Jews.”
This is exactly how the ICRC is treating the current crisis, where over 200 Israeli—Jewish!—civilians were taken hostage by a terrorist group. No press release by the ICRC makes reference to the religious affiliation or racial origins of the hostages—the same tactic they took in Nazi Germany and claim to regret.
Once again it is clear that the people in question are, for the most part, Jews.
Excerpt 2: “In the summer of 1942, the ICRC debated whether to launch a general appeal on violations of international humanitarian law. It prepared a draft, but decided in the end not to issue the appeal, believing that it would not achieve the desired results. The ICRC therefore continued with its bilateral approaches.”
In their current FAQ on the hostage situation, the Red Cross notes: “To build and maintain trust, our mode of operation is a bilateral, confidential dialogue. People might not see us on television or on social media speaking about these talks. It may feel like we are silent, but we are where it most counts. We are not outspoken because we know from decades of experience that the way we can best influence change for those we want to help is to keep a low profile and advocate for the best interests of those we want to help discretely and directly with those who have the influence to make a difference.”
They also note: “Years of experience speaking with parties to the conflict and non-state armed groups have proven that our bilateral approach to raise issues of concern is important to achieve results.”
Source: ICRC website, “Frequently asked questions on ICRC and the hostages held in Gaza” https://bit.ly/3sTrTRW
We are dealing with terrorists whose actions would shame even Nazis, and yet the Red Cross continues to take the same “bilateral” stance they took on the crimes against humanity committed by the Nazis. A stance which they themselves call out as a mistake when looking back on World War II.
To quote Jean-Claude Favez, the ICRC “did not take the supreme risk of throwing the full weight of its moral authority into the scales on behalf of these particular victims.” (“The Red Cross and the Holocaust,” page 282). And they continue to use these ineffective tactics today.
Tova Morrison
Fair Lawn
