By Stephen M. Flatow, JNS
At most, it served as a middleman in hostage releases—a courier, not a defender of human dignity.
“The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is an impartial, neutral and independent organization whose exclusively humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of armed conflict and other situations of violence.” — ICRC Mission Statement
Those are noble words. They speak of neutrality, dignity and protection. But when it comes to Gaza and the Israeli hostages seized by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023, the Red Cross did not live up to them. In fact, it failed miserably.
Nearly 250 hostages were held underground by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, all denied contact with the outside world. Throughout this ordeal, the International Committee of the Red Cross never insisted on access to the captives. It did not demand medical visits, did not send verification missions and did not speak out publicly.
At most, it served as a middleman in hostage releases—a courier, not a defender of human dignity. For the families of those who were held captive, that wasn’t neutrality. It was abdication.
The ICRC often defends its “quiet diplomacy.” But diplomacy that accomplishes nothing isn’t diplomacy. It’s moral surrender.
The contrast with its record elsewhere is striking. In Ukraine, the Red Cross publicly demanded access to Russian-held prisoners, negotiated site visits and issued regular press releases. In Syria and Iraq, it pushed for humanitarian corridors. In the Balkans, it was one of the first organizations on the ground documenting the fate of missing people.
Yet in Gaza, when Jews and Israelis were the victims, the Red Cross fell silent. No daily briefings. No public pressure. No urgent campaign. An organization that prides itself on defending the voiceless chose to say nothing.
This is not the first time that the Red Cross has failed its own mission. During World War II, it allowed itself to be manipulated by Nazi propaganda at Theresienstadt, failing to report on the horrors it saw. In Srebrenica in 1995, its inaction left it documenting a massacre rather than preventing one.
The Red Cross likes to say it “cannot enforce” but only “advocate.” In the Gaza Strip, it didn’t even advocate with the urgency the situation required.
Hamas committed clear war crimes: kidnapping civilians, denying them food and medical care, and refusing access to international observers. The Red Cross’s silence and passivity effectively normalized that behavior.
Yes, quiet diplomacy has its place, but only when it produces results. In Gaza, it produced nothing—no visits, no medical checks, no confirmation of life. The world learned about the hostages through Hamas propaganda videos, not humanitarian reports.
This wasn’t a failure of logistics but a failure of will.
Real neutrality does not mean standing by while terrorists brutalize innocent civilians. It means upholding humanitarian principles consistently. In Gaza, real neutrality would have meant pressing Hamas loudly and publicly, day after day, to allow visits to the hostages. It would have meant reminding the world that these men, women and children have rights under international law.
Instead, the Red Cross hid behind procedural language and diplomatic whispers. It became a spectator to human suffering, not a defender of human dignity.
If the Red Cross wants to be taken seriously, then it owes the hostages and their families answers:
Silence in the face of barbarism isn’t neutrality; it’s complicity. And this time, the silence of the Red Cross came at the expense of Israeli lives.
Until the ICRC holds itself accountable to its own charter, its reputation as a guardian of humanitarian values will remain permanently stained by its failure in Gaza.
