Edited by: Fern Sidman

In a significant legal development, dozens of individuals, either kidnapped by Hamas terrorists on October 7 or closely related to hostages, have filed a lawsuit against the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in an Israeli court, as was recently reported by the New York Times. The plaintiffs have argued that the Red Cross failed to fulfill its obligation to assist victims of armed conflict and violence, particularly in the context of the ongoing hostage crisis involving Hamas terrorist captors.

The hostage crisis began on October 7 when Hamas terrorists abducted approximately 240 individuals in Israel. Israel believes that, as of now, 129 people, predominantly men, are still being held captive. According to the NYT report, the Red Cross, tasked with providing humanitarian aid and facilitating communication between detainees and their families, has faced increasing pressure from Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to exert influence on Hamas for access to the hostages.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has publicly called on the Red Cross to put pressure on Hamas to grant access to aid workers and paramedics to visit the remaining hostages. However, Mirjana Spoljaric, the president of the Red Cross, expressed concerns that increased public pressure might lead to a more restrictive approach from Hamas, the NYT report indicated.

Filed in Jerusalem District Court on Thursday by the Shurat HaDin-Israeli Law Center, an Israeli human rights group, the lawsuit alleges that the Red Cross has not fulfilled its obligations. Specifically, the complaint contends that the Red Cross has not visited the hostages to assess their health, provide necessary medications, and report back to their families, according to the information in the NYT report. Furthermore, it asserts that the organization has not done enough to secure the release of the hostages.

The civil complaint seeks approximately $2.8 million in damages. Additionally, it requests a court order directing the Red Cross to visit all remaining hostages, provide them with medications, and relay information about their well-being to their families.

Jason Straziuso, a spokesperson for the Red Cross, stated that the organization had not yet seen the lawsuit. The NYT report said that he explained that the Red Cross officials did not know the location of the hostages in Gaza, making visits impossible without assurance of safe passage from both Hamas and the Israeli military. The organization emphasized that appearing unannounced could potentially endanger the hostages, and they would only consider visits with proper agreements in place.

Alyona Synenko, an I.C.R.C. spokeswoman in Jerusalem, acknowledged the frustration and anger of those affected by the hostage crisis. The NYT report said that she noted that the Red Cross’s efforts to gain access to the hostages had been occurring behind closed doors and were not apparent to the public.

Representing the families, lawyer Nitsana Darshan-Leitner acknowledged the unusual nature of the lawsuit.  As was noted in the NYT report, the legal challenge contends that the ICRC holds a unique position under international humanitarian law, granting it a mandate and moral duty to visit hostages, assess their well-being, and advocate for their release. The complaint argues that the ICRC has not fulfilled its expected role and responsibilities.

The families argue that the Red Cross has not acted as “reasonably expected” in the context of the Gaza hostage crisis. The information in the NYT report indicated that while the Geneva Convention empowers the ICRC to visit prisoners of war and victims of violence in conflict zones, the organization has maintained that it cannot force entry into places where hostages are held. However, the lawsuit challenges this stance, asserting that the ICRC could leverage diplomatic channels, such as the United Nations and the Palestinian Authority, to apply pressure on Hamas.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly called on the Red Cross to exert public pressure on Hamas to allow access to hostages. He claimed that a deal brokered in late November, which included exchanging hostages for Palestinian prisoners, involved a provision for the ICRC to visit all remaining hostages in the Gaza Strip, the report in the NYT said. However, this aspect of the deal remains unconfirmed by other parties.

Drawing parallels to historical failures during World War II, Darshan-Leitner pointed out that the current situation in Gaza echoes the ICRC’s limited efforts to save Jews deported and exterminated in concentration camps during the Holocaust era in Europe, the NYT report said. The ICRC has previously acknowledged and apologized for its shortcomings during that period. Additionally, Darshan-Leitner highlighted that the ICRC did not visit Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier held captive in the Gaza Strip for five years until his release in 2011, and has not visited other Israelis held by Hamas, according to the NYT report.

As the legal battle unfolds, the families’ lawsuit against the ICRC raises significant questions about the role of international humanitarian organizations in hostage situations. The case could prompt a reexamination of the expectations placed on organizations like the Red Cross and their ability to navigate diplomatic challenges while fulfilling their mandates.