Neutrality, it seems, is no longer a cornerstone of the Red Cross
The neutral politics of the Red Cross
Comments | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
The International Red Cross, with a long held reputation for neutrality as airtight as the country in which it originated, is now training Palestinian terrorists.
“The International Red Cross has begun training Palestinian militants in Gaza as part of what it says is its worldwide effort to teach the rules of international humanitarian law in areas of armed conflict.” (abc.net.au).
“All armed factions in Gaza have signed up to the course, which explains the rules of war under the Geneva Convention and how to protect civilians.
“The Red Cross says it gives the same courses to the Israeli army.”
Given the shift to politicization in one of the most recognized organizations in the world, we should have seen it coming.
Founded to protect the victims of international and internal armed conflicts, the organization won respect for its role in administering to war wounded, prisoners, refugees, civilians and other non-combatants.
But somewhere along the way, the Red Cross came out of the field to sit at the table and began taking on the role of rhetoric, seeming no longer content with its long-held status as trusted and neutral guardian of the Geneva conventions around the world.
Indeed, in its self-styled role as a critic of the United States, the Red Cross is giving plenty of competition to the anti-American United Nations. Its new role is surely most welcome among the anti-war contingent.
When a 2004 leaked Red Cross report indicated that detainee abuse was widespread in Iraq, the organization first rushed to confirm the authenticity of the document, then held a press conference about it.
Observers of the Red Cross know it is also calls itself the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.
Like many NGOs in today’s politically correct world, the Red Cross started some years ago to veer onto the path of politicization.
Once the transition from neutrality to politicization was made, the mask of a strictly humanitarian organization started to slip.
Groups attending post-9/11 events in the U.S. have been banned from singing God Bless America by the Red Cross. The organization fended off criticism by claiming that allowing singing of the patriotic song ran the risk of offending Muslims.
(The Red Cross) “Has barred the Israeli Magen David ambulance service from joining, despite its unblemished record of aiding the wounded, regardless of religion or politics; and has let its ambulances repeatedly be used by Palestinian terrorists in Israel—some of whom proved to be Palestine Red Crescent Society employees in good standing!—for the transportation of homicide bombers and weapons.” (www.FrontPageMagazine.com, Nov. 2, 2003). “And as scholar Jeremy Rabkin has noted, an official at the Red Cross/Red Crescent’s Geneva headquarters circulated the heinous blood libel, claiming Israel had orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.
“As the example of the Red Cross/Red Crescent shows, humanitarian groups are being enlisted into a war on America. Like the Red Cross/Red Crescent, the UN, Doctors Without Borders, and other charitable or non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are also hostile to America’s right to self defense. And yet, as the murderous, October 27 attack on the Red Cross/Red Crescent’s Baghdad headquarters showed, even supporting terrorists fails to protect an organization from their wrath.”
Neutrality, it seems, is no longer a cornerstone of the Red Cross.
Its founders’ noble dreams about winning world support as the trusted and neutral guardian of the Geneva Conventions around the world are lost to the organization’s politicalization.
They would never recognize their organization as the Mati Hari of the humanitarian world.