- The 1986 foundational Statutes of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) proclaim that it is “a worldwide humanitarian movement, whose mission is to prevent and alleviate human suffering wherever it may be found, to protect life and health and ensure respect for the human being, in particular in times of armed conflict.”
- For an organization whose sole purpose and mission is to help victims of wars and human rights violations, it is patently obvious that the ICRC has totally failed in its mission, as reflected in its mishandling of Israel’s hostage crisis.
- The ICRC failed in its most basic responsibilities to the more than 250 kidnap victims from some 20 nations taken hostage as part of Hamas’s egregious invasion, mass murder, and rape. Moral and legal responsibility lies chiefly with the Swiss government under whose auspices the ICRC functions, together with the state’s parties to the Geneva Conventions who finance its very existence and are in the position to monitor, direct, and influence the ICRC’s functioning.
- Why have they not impressed upon those elements influencing Hamas – chiefly Qatar, Egypt, the UN, and other Arab elements – that Israeli victims of terror and kidnapping are entitled to humane treatment?
- How is it conceivable that the Swiss government and the ICRC have sat idly for more than 16 months while being openly manipulated and abused by the Hamas terror organization? Rather, they have passively accepted Hamas’s refusal to allow the transfer of medications, and medical and humanitarian visits, to the sick and wounded and all illegally-held hostages.
- Moreover, it challenges all semblance of logic and moral clarity that the ICRC can countenance images of armed, masked terrorists standing on ICRC vehicles displaying the Red Cross emblem and flag while such vehicles transport tortured, suffering, and ill Israeli hostages – and its representatives participating in “release ceremonies” with terrorist leaders.
The 1986 foundational Statutes of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and Red Crescent Movement proclaim that:
International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies together constitute a worldwide humanitarian movement, whose mission is to prevent and alleviate human suffering wherever it may be found, to protect life and health and ensure respect for the human being, in particular in times of armed conflict and other emergencies.1
On issues of impartiality and neutrality, the Statutes similarly proclaim:
Impartiality – It makes no discrimination as to nationality, race, religious beliefs, class or political opinions. It endeavours to relieve the suffering of individuals, being guided solely by their needs, and to give priority to the most urgent cases of distress.
Neutrality – In order to continue to enjoy the confidence of all, the Movement may not take sides in hostilities or engage at any time in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature.
Specifically, the Statutes require the ICRC:
To endeavor at all times – as a neutral institution whose humanitarian work is carried out particularly in time of international and other armed conflicts or internal strife – to ensure the protection of and assistance to military and civilian victims of such events and of their direct results.2
For an organization whose sole acknowledged purpose and mission is to help victims of wars and human rights violations, it is patently obvious that the ICRC has totally failed in its mission, as reflected in its mishandling of Israel’s hostage crisis.
The ICRC’s abject failure in its most basic responsibilities to the more than 250 kidnap victims from some 20 nations taken hostage as part of the Iran-backed Hamas terror group’s egregious one-day invasion, mass murder, and rape is tragic in and of itself. There are even worse ramifications: The ICRC’s reasoning for its malfeasance, how it could possibly have taken place, and more far-reaching, evident lack of capability, willingness, seriousness, or even perhaps willful and deliberate apathy, neglect, and laxity on the part of the ICRC staff.
This historic dereliction is not limited to the ICRC and its staff. Moral and legal responsibility lies chiefly with the Swiss government under whose auspices the ICRC functions, together with the state’s parties to the Geneva Conventions who finance its very existence and are in the position to monitor, direct, and influence the ICRC’s functioning.
One may indeed ask where has the Swiss government been, with its unique international stature, in the context of the Israeli hostage situation?
Why have they not leveraged their historically renowned international reputation and stature – perhaps Switzerland’s outstanding capability, and international reputation – to impress upon those elements influencing the Hamas terror organization, chiefly Qatar, Egypt, the UN, and other Arab elements, that Israeli victims of terror and kidnapping are entitled to humane treatment?
This is particularly evident in light of the remarks by Swiss Federation President Karin Keller-Sutter in her February 10, 2025, Holocaust Remembrance Day ceremony address. There, Keller-Sutter emphasized the crucial remembrance and lessons of the Holocaust and its commensurate total civilizational breakdown, especially now that antisemitism is reemerging in Switzerland, in some cases openly. She noted:
There can be no tolerance of Jews being intimidated, discriminated against or threatened. Our democratic values of tolerance, mutual respect and coexistence are not compatible with signs of hatred based on race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.3
How is it conceivable that the Swiss government and the ICRC have sat idly for more than 16 months while being openly manipulated and abused by the Hamas terror organization? Rather, they have passively accepted Hamas’s refusal to allow the transfer of medications, and medical and humanitarian visits, to the sick and wounded and all illegally held hostages, and to allow humane and respectful treatment of the dead – all this without taking requisite and vital international action in light of their unique international status.
Given the celebrated constitutional impartiality and neutrality of the ICRC, it challenges all semblance of logic and moral clarity that the ICRC can countenance images of armed, masked terrorists sitting and standing on ICRC vehicles displaying the Red Cross emblem and flag while such vehicles transport tortured, suffering, and ill Israeli hostages.
By the same token, how can the ICRC permit its representatives, its status, dignity, and presence to be manipulated into participating in staged, contrived bogus “release ceremonies,” sitting with masked, armed terrorist leaders, signing bogus “release certificates” and exchanging handshakes?
Where is the dignity of the ICRC, the Red Cross Movement, the Cross Emblem, and the Red Cross Flag?
The enormity of this intolerable and inexcusable lacuna, of this utter failure by Switzerland and the ICRC, really cannot be explained in terms of inability or incapability. It begs the obvious question as to how this could happen.
This huge lack of any genuine, serious, and sincere action by Switzerland and the ICRC is not just glaring in its enormity but defies all logic.
Furthermore, and no less pointedly, it cannot but lead to the implication and assumption that such inaction has been and continues to be beyond mere negligence or unintended error. It raises the question as to whether it emanates from a sinister and ulterior motive, something that tragically in historical context appears to be all too familiar.
The Swiss and ICRC’s failures in ensuring the provision of humanitarian succor to the Israeli hostages are not just unforgettable. They are unforgivable.
The entire credibility of the ICRC as a humanitarian organization is in tatters. It cannot recover from this.
The reputation of Switzerland as the worldwide bastion of moral rectitude and dignity is completely undermined and ruined.
Switzerland can no longer claim any element of international moral high ground. It has lost the little stature that it might have had.
* * *
Notes
