In 1863, the Geneva Convention established the Red Cross emblem as a symbol of protection for medics during armed conflict.
How ironic, therefore, that in recent weeks, that same logo has appeared on the uniforms of officials taking part in the ritual mortification of hostages during those grotesque Hamas signing ceremonies, which contravene article three of the Geneva Convention prohibiting the “humiliating and degrading treatment” of prisoners of war.
As if that wasn’t bad enough, at the handover propaganda ritual on Shabbat, when hostages Evyatar David and Guy Gilboa Dalal were filmed by Hamas begging for mercy as they were forced to watch the release of their compatriots, they were sitting in a car just ten feet from Red Cross vehicles.
This came after 16 months in which the supposedly humanitarian organisation showed a marked partiality towards the war in Gaza. When it came to criticising the treatment of murderers in Israeli prisons, or posting on social media about the suffering of Palestinians, its voice was loud and clear.
But has it been straining every sinew to carry out its actual mandate of gaining humanitarian access to the hostages? In the eyes of many, not so much.
When great-grandmother Elma Avraham, 84, was released as part of the first deal, she was in critical condition, having been deprived of her medication.
Her daughter, Tal Amano, revealed that the desperate family had tried on several occasions to drop her drugs off with the Red Cross, but they refused even to accept them. After five months in hospital in Israel following her release, the elderly lady pulled through. Others weren’t so lucky.
Again, hardly a surprise. This was the organization that had refused to admit Israel’s Magen David Adom ambulance service as a member for 70 years before it eventually relented.
During the Second World War, it produced positive reports of both Theresienstadt and Auschwitz, the latter breezily whitewashed as having no “installations for exterminating civilian prisoners.”
Yehuda Kurtzer interviewed Red Cross legal advisor
Some fear that the whitewashing remains a problem. In a recent podcast, Yehuda Kurtzer, president of the Shalom Hartman Institute, interviewed Noa Schreuer, a legal advisor for the Red Cross.
In his opening monologue, he said: “I understand the larger fear that on certain moral issues, there can be no middle ground. I also find this way of thinking about conflict to be incredibly dangerous. The minute you divide the world in two on any issue of moral importance, the less you can ever resolve conflict through compromise.”
That was a bit of a marmalade-dropper. After all, when it comes to Hamas, talk of compromise is rare for a reason. It recalled Golda Meir’s famous remark: “They say we must be dead. And we say we want to be alive. Between life and death, I don’t know of a compromise.” These opening minutes felt like an indication of where the conversation was headed.
The interview duly focused on a defence of Red Cross “neutrality”. Of course, it isn’t the neutrality that people complain about but the perceived lack of it. Nonetheless, the resounding conclusion was that the organization is widely misunderstood because of the way it is considered to be obliged to communicate.
“In the atmosphere of noise in which we live, the expectation is a kind of constant stream of narrative condemnation by Twitter,” Kurtzer said. “If you haven’t condemned the right things… then there’s something very problematic.”
Other criticisms were gently raised — why the Red Cross demands aid for Gaza, why it didn’t visit the hostages, why the handovers were “chaotic,” why it hangs out with Israelophobic NGOs and its historical alliance with the Nazis — but all were easily batted away. I must confess, I ended up shouting at my phone. Why wasn’t the Red Cross representative being dragged over the coals for her organisation’s obvious softness on Hamas?
Later, a number of people confided that it seemed odd that the podcast hadn’t made clear that Kurtzer’s brother, Jacob, worked for the Red Cross for seven years. After all, his father’s role as an ambassador was mentioned. “I take a lot of pride in my family members and their diverse professional achievements, several of whom have expertise on issues that overlaps with what I work on and care about,” he said when I asked about it.
“Like all human beings, my relationships absolutely inform how I see the world. At the same time, I strive in my work to form my own views on complicated issues, and I use the podcast as a commentary and dialogue platform to engage complicated issues with sincerity and with critical commentary. This requires objectivity as relates to the facts, and also involves forming and sharing learned opinion where appropriate.”
His podcast “lived up to these standards,” he added, inviting listeners to judge for themselves. Give it a listen.