Red Cross Double Standard

The Jerusalem Post
Monday, October 8, 1990

RECENT RESEARCH by Swiss and Israeli historians has confirmed that the leadership of the International Committee of the Red Cross during World War II knew of the Nazi atrocities against the Jews by 1942 but chose to remain "neutral," neither protesting against them, nor even publicizing them. In the face of ample evidence, the ICRC rejected suggestions that it issue even the limpest of statements, to the effect that "certain categories of civil persons" were being persecuted and "even threatened with death," fearing that such criticism would anger the Germans. As late as 1944, the ICRC mounted a ferocious struggle to prevent its own officials in Hungary from working to save the Jewish community there - on the grounds that the Jews were "political prisoners" of the states in which they lived and therefore not protected by international law or the organization's charter.

RECENT RESEARCH by Swiss and Israeli historians has confirmed that the leadership of the International Committee of the Red Cross during World War II knew of the Nazi atrocities against the Jews by 1942 but chose to remain "neutral," neither protesting against them, nor even publicizing them. In the face of ample evidence, the ICRC rejected suggestions that it issue even the limpest of statements, to the effect that "certain categories of civil persons" were being persecuted and "even threatened with death," fearing that such criticism would anger the Germans. As late as 1944, the ICRC mounted a ferocious struggle to prevent its own officials in Hungary from working to save the Jewish community there - on the grounds that the Jews were "political prisoners" of the states in which they lived and therefore not protected by international law or the organization's charter. Nor did Red Cross ambivalence towards Jews end with the close of the war. The deportations of Jews from Palestine by the British before Israel's independence were also considered of no interest to the humanitarian organization, which in 1949 went on to reject Magen David Adom's request to have its symbol recognized. And though the ICRC did finally assist in the evacuation of Jews from Nasser's Egypt, it spurns the Magen David Adom symbol to this day, even though it recognizes the Red Crescent societies of the Arab world and the Red Lion and Sun in Iran, names adopted because of a refusal to accept Christian symbolism. Like Amnesty International, the Red Cross has mounted withering attacks on Israel's deportation of individual terror organizers - attacks which have at times included comparisons with Nazi Germany - while remaining silent before the wholesale destruction of innocents and the forced "transfer" and exile of hundreds of thousands in the Arab world.

The phenomenon of Red Cross docility in the face of Arab brutality was once again brought to the fore with the mass hostage-takings in Kuwait. The organization's low-key performance triggered an uncharacteristic attack by the British prime minister. In attempting to deny the justice of Margaret Thatcher's charges, the head of the ICRC delegation to Israel, Andre Collomb, retorted in a recent Jerusalem Post article that the ICRC had "repeatedly expressed its preoccupation" with the use of foreigners as human shields at Iraqi military installations because this is a violation of "international humanitarian law." With a defense like this, one can easily understand Mrs. Thatcher's ire. An entire nation is being forcibly deported and resettled, thousands of foreign citizens are held hostage, rape and executions are commonplace, chemical attacks on other states are explicitly threatened, the destruction of the Kurds grinds on - and the ICRC has found one cause for concern: that Iraq's government is illicitly "using civilians to achieve military goals."

The most charitable explanation for the Red Cross's double standard is that it results from the freedom of movement and information accorded by democratic countries. While even the most vicious assault on Israel's deportation of a few persons will not prevent the Red Cross from continuing to operate as it sees fit in Israel, any minor affront to Saddam would put an end to its operations in Iraq and Kuwait for good - and possibly trigger a violent response against Swiss citizens. But one can only respond with revulsion to the rationalized double standard of a relief organization which unapologetically caves in to terrorists at the expense of those whom it is charged with helping. And which year after year refuses to recognize the right of the Jewish State to its own, non-Christian, symbol of neutrality, charity and medical relief.