For the hostages in Gaza, the Red Cross is neutral - but we are not bystanders

The first phase of the cease-fire agreement between Israel and Hamas has ended. This was a nerve-wracking, exhausting, difficult month and a half in which combined supreme happiness with indescribable pain. Thirty hostages returned to Israel alive, eight deceased were returned for dignified burial, and 1,510 Palestinian detainees were released. 

I was not in Israel on October 7. But when I arrived, it was impossible not to feel, almost physically, how much the pain of that terrible day was present in every corner and in every person. I could sense how this severe humanitarian crisis completely changed Israeli society. 

As a humanitarian organization, our job at the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) is to help people, all human beings affected by conflict. We do this work in some of the most difficult places in the world, sometimes successfully, and sometimes less so. We do this work with a methodology foreign to most: neutrality. We do not take sides in conflicts or controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature. We try to be a bridge between warring parties, and act as an entity that is concerned only with the interests of the people affected, on both sides. 

This is an approach that leads to a lot of criticism. Many believe neutrality is an end in and of itself. There are those who go as far, in good faith or malice, and state that neutrality is a form of taking sides. This misunderstands the way we operate. 

While we do not often speak publicly, we are also never silent in places where we believe we have influence. From the first day of the war, we condemned the taking of the hostages and made it clear it was illegal and unacceptable and demanded their release. 

Neutrality provides us with the ability to try and influence both sides to act in accordance with the laws of war. It is the confidential diplomatic work – in which things are said clearly, behind closed doors, without publicly denouncing or supporting either side – that makes humanitarian 
work possible. Taking a position without strategic thinking may endanger the very people we are trying to help. 

It is this approach that provides us access to places that other entities cannot reach. It should allow us access to the hostages in Gaza, and it allows us to execute the agreements that facilitate their release.

Neutrality is not a perfect method. In reality, we have not been able to gain access to the hostages in Gaza. This is hugely disappointing to us, to the public in Israel, and across the world. But the lack of success is in no way due to lack of desire, lack of care, lack of attempts or sinister motives falsely and maliciously attributed to us as an organization. 

Since October 7, we have held dozens of meetings to gain this long-awaited access. We spoke with Hamas and with Israel, with the mediators, and with any party who we thought could help. These meetings were held in Israel, Gaza, Qatar, Lebanon, Europe and the U.S. 

In these meetings we presented an unequivocal position. We made it clear that taking hostages violates international humanitarian law and that all hostages should be released immediately and unconditionally. We added that until that happens, we should be given access to the hostages, and we 
implored the parties involved to act in accordance with the laws of war. Unfortunately, these efforts, still ongoing, did not bear fruit. 

This lack of success is not unique to this conflict. In other parts of the world we also encounter refusal to allow us access to hostages, to detainees and sometimes even to captured soldiers. The Israeli government has also refused to allow us access to Palestinian prisoners since October 7.

It is legitimate to criticize our approach. However, we have seen in different countries around the world – Colombia, Yemen, Nigeria – that this is the way that works and allows us to ultimately help release hostages. 

And because of our approach, the parties, Israel and Hamas, asked us to be that bridge between them during the simultaneous release operations over the past few weeks. It also allowed us, in November 2023 and over the last six weeks, to return 147 hostages to Israel. We are also criticized for this. For those unfamiliar with what a release operation involves, it is easy to discount the necessary efforts and criticize the way it is conducted. 

In moments of truth, I'm the one who has to make decisions. These decisions may affect the fate of people entrusted to me. I was the one not willing to risk the lives of the hostages, those who stood on the stage, and those waiting to be released next. 

Despite the difficult scenes – and although we repeatedly urged the parties and mediators to ensure that release operations are conducted with the utmost respect for the hostages' dignity, privacy, and safety – I was the one who made the decision to continue acting. Our role as agreed upon by the parties to the ceasefire deal was to bring the hostages home. In that instance, it meant that 38 hostages were reunited with their families or were given a proper burial.

Since October 7, we have met with representatives of the families on average once per week. Our intention is to hear their stories and understand their needs. We recognize that our inability to visit their loved ones in Gaza disappoints these family members. 

One of our goals is to avoid causing additional harm to those we are aiming to help. We recognize that for many people, during these extremely difficult moments, we couldn't offer the support they needed. In this too we are trying to improve. 

As for the families of the 59 hostages who remain in Gaza, I want to assure you that we will continue to do our best to ensure their release and relentlessly pursue access to them. For us, alleviating human suffering in conflict comes before politics, reputation or communication. 
 

Julien Lerisson is head of delegation for the International Committee of the Red Cross in Israel and the Occupied Territories