The Red Cross and Gaza's Genocide: Humanitarian Mediation or Pro-’Israel’ Bias?

Since the start of the Israeli Occupation’s genocide on Gaza in October 2023, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has found itself at the center of controversy, accused of double standards and questionable stances that many see as clear favoritism toward Tel Aviv.

Criticism escalated during prisoner and body exchanges under the ceasefire deal, as Palestinians observed stark discrepancies in how the organization treated victims and perpetrators—further fueling doubts about its credibility and humanitarian role.

The ICRC presents itself as a “neutral and independent organization that ensures protection and humanitarian aid for those affected by armed conflicts and violence.” However, the latest Israeli war on Gaza has exposed the hollowness of this claim, revealing a clear bias in its response to those impacted.

The organization receives funding from governments party to the Geneva Conventions, national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, supranational entities like the European Commission, and both public and private sources.

Amid mounting accusations, serious questions arise about the ICRC’s neutrality and whether it can truly fulfill its humanitarian mission without political influence or external pressures shaping its actions.

The Return of the Bodies

The debate over the Red Cross’s role reignited after it received the first batch of Israeli prisoners’ bodies from Gaza on February 20, 2025, as part of the initial phase of a three-stage ceasefire agreement.

Palestinian resistance forces placed each Israeli prisoner’s body in a black coffin labeled with their photo, name, date of capture, and time of death before handing them over to the Red Cross.

However, what stood out was the Red Cross’s decision to cover each black coffin with pristine white fabric and assign a dedicated four-wheel-drive vehicle for transport to “Israel.”

Even more striking was the effort to shield the coffins from public view, enclosing them in white plastic barriers and banning photography—citing respect for the deceased.

This stark contrast underscored a glaring double standard. The Red Cross has routinely wrapped Palestinian martyrs’ bodies in blue plastic bags, stacked them in freight trucks, and left them in hospital courtyards or near mass graves—often without any effort to identify them.

Commenting on the disparity, Ismail al-Thawabta, director of Gaza’s Government Media Office, said while the Red Cross conducts solemn, official ceremonies when receiving Israeli prisoners’ bodies, it delivers Palestinian martyrs in blue bags tossed into trucks with no regard for human dignity.

“This blatant discrimination exposes the Red Cross’s double standards and the international system’s failure to uphold justice and fairness!” he posted on X.

Amid mounting criticism, the International Committee of the Red Cross stated on February 21, 2025, that in all cases where people are killed or die during conflicts, their bodies must be treated with respect.

The organization emphasized the right of families to know the fate of their loved ones and to ensure their burial in a manner that preserves their dignity and respects their traditions. However, its actions on the ground told a different story.

ICRC also stressed the importance of recovering remains, managing them properly, and identifying the deceased to help prevent the tragedies of missing persons in armed conflicts.

Defending its neutrality, the Red Cross repeatedly claimed that the escalation of “violence” in “Israel” and the occupied Palestinian territories had led to the spread of offensive language, false information, and misleading narratives about the Red Cross and its work in the current “conflict.”

The Detainees’ File

Beyond the handling of bodies, the Red Cross has long faced scrutiny over its approach to captives—both those held in Israeli jails and the Israelis released from Gaza.

During the brief truce in November 2023, when a limited exchange of Palestinian detainees and Israeli captives took place, another glaring contradiction surfaced.

Red Cross staff greeted freed Israeli captives with warm embraces and smiles, showing visible care and attention—treatment never extended to Palestinian detainees upon their release.

“I was arrested by Israel six times as a child. The Red Cross always visited me alone. Never in my life did any of them embrace me,” Palestinian journalist Muath Hamed posted on X.

“Their greetings never went beyond a handshake. Yet here we see Red Cross staff offering group hugs to Israeli women released from Gaza.”

Since October 7, the Red Cross has failed to visit a single Palestinian detainee, despite the severe crackdown and abuse they have faced following the launch of Operation al-Aqsa Flood.

Local sources report that the organization has also made no effort to facilitate family visits to Israeli prisons or provide any clarification on the matter, remaining silent since the start of the war.

This inaction stands in stark contrast to one of the Red Cross’s core missions—“visiting detainees in Israeli and Palestinian detention facilities”—and its claim on its website that it is committed to maintaining family connections through its family visit program.

The organization has faced similar criticism in the past, particularly in 2012, when it was accused of ignoring Palestinian detainees on hunger strike.

In 2016, tensions flared again when the Red Cross cut back its services for the families of Palestinian detainees in occupied Jerusalem, reducing the number of visits it facilitated to just once or twice a month.

This forced families to arrange and fund their own transportation to Israeli prisons after the organization refused to address their complaints.

Beyond negligence, there are allegations of complicity. Freed detainee Yousef al-Mabhuh, released on February 8, 2025, as part of the last exchange deal, recalled, “We were beaten by Israeli forces in front of the Red Cross before my release. You claim to be a neutral organization—so what exactly is your role?”

Abandoning the Besieged

The controversy over the Red Cross’s role extends far beyond its handling of bodies and detainees. For 15 months, as Israeli genocide unfolded in Gaza, the organization’s teams were nowhere to be found.

Palestinians have shared countless testimonies of reaching out to the Red Cross while trapped under Israeli army siege, pleading for rescue—only to be met with silence.

One of the most harrowing examples was the attack on al-Nasser Children’s Hospital in western Gaza on November 10, 2023. Israeli Occupation’s forces stormed the hospital, forcing medical staff to evacuate at gunpoint while refusing to allow the evacuation of premature babies. Five newborns perished as a result, according to the Ministry of Health.

When Israeli forces later withdrew from the al-Nasser neighborhood, the infants’ decomposed bodies were found in their incubators and hospital beds—left to die after being cut off from life-saving treatment.

The Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor called for the Red Cross to be held accountable for failing to respond to distress calls to save the infants’ lives.

At the time, the Red Cross had pledged to intervene but later released a statement justifying its inaction by citing security concerns in northern Gaza.

During the 2014 assault on Gaza, the Red Cross faced similar accusations of disregarding desperate pleas for rescue from residents of Shujaiya, east of Gaza City.

A Complete Double Standard

Mohammed Imad, Director of Legal Affairs and Policy at Skyline International for Human Rights, describes the Red Cross’s stance during the war as deeply concerning and puzzling.

Speaking to Al-Estiklal, he pointed out several key observations. First, when Israeli forces besieged homes and families in Gaza, and distress calls poured in from civilians and hospitals, the Red Cross’s response was passive and inexplicable.

“There was no direct communication with civilians to reassure them or provide clear answers about safe exit routes,” Imad said.

“The Red Cross failed to engage with Israel to exert pressure, even on purely humanitarian matters concerning hospitals and medical centers—the events at al-Nasser Hospital are a prime example.”

The second major issue, according to Imad, was the Red Cross’s role in prisoner exchanges. “As a humanitarian organization, it should serve as a neutral intermediary during armed conflicts.”

“However, what we witnessed contradicted this principle. The Red Cross handled Israeli bodies with precision, professionalism, and exaggerated humanity, while Palestinian bodies were simply tossed into bags without any respect,” Imad added.

He stressed that the organization’s conduct throughout the Israeli war mirrored that of other international institutions—whether humanitarian or rights-based—that remained mere spectators.

“Even worse, at times, it indirectly supported Israel by remaining silent on its violations of international law and humanitarian principles.”

Given its legal obligations under international law and the Geneva Conventions, the Red Cross should have pressed authorities for a dignified and respectful handover of Palestinian remains.

“It should have taken a more serious, humane, professional, and ethical stance in handling both sides—if neutrality was truly the goal, regardless of political considerations.”

Yet, he concluded, “the disregard for civilians’ distress calls, along with the bias in prisoner and body exchanges, exposed a complete double standard in its approach to both sides.”