Elie Wiesel, the Holocaust survivor and Nobel laureate, once wrote, “We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” These words resonate profoundly when examining the complex relationship between Israel and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
On Jan. 16, just days before Hamas released the first three hostages under the latest ceasefire agreement, the ICRC defended its faulty neutrality with a post on social media saying: “In times of war, neutrality is not indifference. It is a deliberate way of working to be able to help without taking sides, allowing us to reach those who need it most.” Yet in the wake of the dramatic release of hostages Romi Gonen, Emily Damari and Doron Steinbrecher, the ICRC has been criticized for not doing more.
The transfer of these hostages was broadcast around the world, but many within the Jewish community feel that despite appeals from hostage families, Israeli leaders and international figures urging the ICRC to provide medical assistance and deliver family messages to the hostages, the organization failed to act. Its lack of action at one point prompted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to bypass the organization and sign a deal with Qatar to try to get medication to the hostages.
Attempting to appear neutral, on Jan. 15, the ICRC’s president, Mirjana Spoljaric, said it was “ready to facilitate any release operation as agreed by the parties so that hostages and detainees can return home,” euphemistically referring to convicted murderers as “detainees.”
But its neutrality appears to be selective. Late last week, Spoljaric visited the Nasser Medical Complex and al-Amal Hospital, where she met with medical authorities and health-care staff, engaging directly with senior medical leaders in Gaza. If she had direct access to such influential figures, why did the ICRC not gain access to the remaining Israeli hostages?
The tensions between Israel and the ICRC are rooted in historical grievances. During the Holocaust, the ICRC was heavily criticized for its failure to speak out against Nazi atrocities or advocate for Jewish victims. Despite knowledge of concentration camps and the systematic extermination of Jews, the organization largely adhered to its policy of neutrality, avoiding public condemnation or intervention.
Another longstanding issue was the exclusion of Israel’s Magen David Adom (MDA) from the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. The ICRC refused to recognize MDA for decades because its emblem, a red Star of David, did not conform to the Geneva Conventions’ symbols of the cross or crescent.
This deadlock was only resolved in 2006, when the “Red Crystal” was adopted as a neutral symbol, allowing MDA to join the movement. However, decades of exclusion left scars and a lingering perception that the ICRC did not fully acknowledge Israel’s unique circumstances.
Globally, the ICRC has been helpful in many crises. However, its neutrality regarding Israeli hostages taken by Hamas on October 7 has drawn a false moral equivalence with an internationally recognized terrorist organization. Neutrality cannot coexist with terrorism. To remain neutral in such situations is to abdicate responsibility and forsake one’s commitment to human rights.
As Elie Wiesel wisely stated: “Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men or women are persecuted because of their race, religion or political views, that place must — at that moment — become the centre of the universe.”
I trust this message will resonate with the ICRC’s leadership, who, contrary to the lessons we have learned, still cling to the belief that “neutrality is not indifference.” It is possible to take action and sides at the same time.
National Post
Avi Benlolo is the founder and CEO of the Abraham Global Peace Initiative.