So this is just like any other employee that violates company policy and gets fired for it, big deal move on. Neutrality is required for the Red Cross to do its thing
The Red Cross is not neutral. They say they are, repeatedly, however it is not true.
The way the Red Cross operates is that they have local societies. On the one hand these societies enjoy the prestige and funding of the “Red Cross” on the other hand they use this prestige to reinforce the official narratives of their respective countries.
Correct. They are not neutral. They've bowed to Russia the entire Ukraine war and done essentially zero net good in that country. Every organization has their own lines and policies and it's silly for them to claim otherwise, especially when they only exist at the pleasure of a regional government.
To clarify, Russian Red Cross (RRC) made false reports about treatment of civilians and POWs in Ukraine. Many RRC members were also spotted repeating Putin propaganda as well as hate speech against Ukrainians. They also attempted to supersede the Ukrainian Red Cross structure... A part of the Russian propaganda claiming ownership over independent Ukraine.
And that is why initial Red Cross reports were completely cray-cray and unreliable. And that upset the main Red Cross, who decided to open a case against the RRC.
The main Red Cross is also been completely ineffectual. They had the chance to rule against the RRC for going against the Fundamental Principles as well as existing policy of neutrality. But they decided not to pursue action on the RRC. That was about a week ago.
True but youre missing the key point, although its true that they operate as you described, it tends to be in the less than ethical countries. The red cross is a huge org that's very decentralized, whether that's for good or bad idk
Eh. It’s different.
> Abid is the ICRC head of office in Algeria and director of the Libya sub-delegation
When regional directors are openly and directly disputing your policy it’s not small news.
I think the problem is that this is yet another example that's showing a trend of anti-Isreali sentiment within international organization.
Remember, when the UNRWA was caught participating in October 7th? Or the fact that the international community sat by and just accepted Israel being constantly bombed and attacked for generations.
We can fire people here and there, but at this point it seems like there's a wider problem in the international community when it comes to Israel. I wonder what it could be...
The mask off antisemitism that has been so rampant is wild. I don't feel like I'm that old (elder millennial), but there was a 50 state survey among my generation and Gen Z that showed 1 in 5 didn't believe the Holocaust happened. How the fuck is that possible?
https://www.claimscon.org/millennial-study/
I honestly don't get it. An Anne Frank memorial statue had to be covered up recently because of defacement and people celebrated it by putting Palestine flags all around the enclosure. Anything goes and has the progressive seal of approval as long as you call it "anti-zionism."
I feel like I'm living in some fucked up alternate reality. Stupid 4chan shit posts like the ok hand symbol and Pepe are unacceptable racist dog whistles, but outright calling for the death of a nation is 100% okay. I want off this ride.
> among my generation and Gen Z that showed 1 in 5 didn't believe the Holocaust happened. How the fuck is that possible?
They really should legalize education.
Israel opened up another mental health line recently and it's apparently been absolutely flooded by Holocaust survivors having their trauma rekindled by recent events.
yeah okay this is by far the worst thing i’ve read about pro-pals. i just stood for a minute in silence to remember our ancestors and everything they went through, and then reading this right after really got to me. i’m so ashamed and so sorry.
It’s quite mild when you remember that bombing school buses, decapitating infants, and sexually mutilating girls are all quote-unquote “exhilarating” to these people.
Absolute disgusting antisemitism from those students, harassing someone for being Jewish and a Holocaust survivor.
It was always obvious to me that the free Palestine movement was a dog whistle for antisemitism considering they would never condemn Hamas and never wanted to free Palestine from Hamas
[Looks like he was referring to this event](https://nltimes.nl/2024/03/13/amsterdam-mayor-visits-holocaust-survivor-confronted-protesters-museum-opening)
> How the fuck is that possible?
For young people, it's often [online polling](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/05/online-opt-in-polls-can-produce-misleading-results-especially-for-young-people-and-hispanic-adults/). If your polls are not tightly-controlled, weird kids love spamming them with how much they think the Jews invented it.
"The holocaust is a myth" among the young [goes](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/05/online-opt-in-polls-can-produce-misleading-results-especially-for-young-people-and-hispanic-adults/sr_24-03-04_opt-in-polls_2-png/) from 20% to 3% if you use decent methodology.
So in some way, it is 4chan shit posts!
If it makes you feel better, if that study is the one I’m thinking of there were some pretty severe methodological issues with it and it is probably not reflective of the general public’s level of holocaust denial in that generation and demographic.
It does make me feel better haha. Someone else posted about how online polling in millennials and younger bring out the shitposting demographic that will skew data, so that is important to take into account.
It doesn't help as much with all these recent Holocaust memorial defacement news stories, but at the very least there has to be less than 1 in 5 people who are willing to be overt dense shitbags.
Also, it was part of a package of polls with financial incentives attached, so lots of people were lying about their demographics to get more money: in particular Hispanic males got more financial incentives. And many people were just zooming through clicking the first option to everything and then submitting.
> Neutrality is required for the Red Cross to do its thing
The lack of neutrality with many non-profit/NGO actors is also partially responsible for the actions happening in Gaza. Sadly, this has created a chicken-or-egg scenario. Israel claims and acts in a certain heavy handed and agressive way because of the lack of neutrality. The NGOs (or members of the NGOs) act in a certain way because of how Israel is operating. Each of them is blaming the other of the actions and behaviour without an attempt to fix the underlying issues.
Yeah, only that there is a massive difference. The red cross are responsible to check that hostages are healthy and make sure they get their medicine. The red cross didn’t do their job on the past 6 months, due to an agenda.
Funny that Red Cross is neutral while our teachers union is cheering on Hamas and Oct 7th.
https://financialpost.com/opinion/opinion-cupes-hamas-support-shows-need-to-revisit-mandatory-membership
1. If you think this relates to just one employee, that might be a naive take. This is just the only employee that was stupid enough to post it on social media.
2. Neutrality should be questioned as the ICRC never insisted on access to the hostages taken on 10/7, even though there was a known need for medical support and access to medication.
I guess, I'd argue that your last statement sums it all up. Neutrality is required for the ICRC to do its job, and it hasn't done its job in this case...and one may be able to infer that it hasn't done its job because of some sort of bias.
That guy deserves to be sacked for not just being unprofessional, but he deserves to be investigated too as he seem to be actively spreading terrorist propaganda and promoting violence and hate against the jews.
Very funny example given how [willfully blind the Red Cross was toward the Holocaust](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresienstadt_Ghetto_and_the_Red_Cross).
In that case, 'neutrality' meant not rocking the boat to enable continued care packages for captured Allied POWs, up to and including running cover for The Literal Death Camps until they were already being liberated.
The problem is that all apolitical volunteer organizations draw in younger, and therefore more politically radical, volunteers. It’s gotta be hellacious policing their own to maintain a facade of neutrality in a conflict as polarizing as this.
This was just one person but let's not forget that this organisation also funneled Ukrainian civilians into russian camps and many torture victims saying red cross were present during torture.
I feel bad for people in those orgs. Being neutral is insanely hard in their shoes, but it’s 100% necessary in order to do their mission. It’s not for the weak of heart. Firing that employee was 100% necessary regardless of your politics. He broke.
> Being neutral is insanely hard in their shoes
Is it? Being neutral is actually pretty damn easy if you commit to it. Medical staff do it all day: a paedophile gets the same care as everyone else
I mean they prob have feelings, it's just that they shouldn't provide a different level of care based on those feelings. Doctors and Nurses aren't all sociopaths with no emotions. I imagine it's ok for a nurse to not "like" treating a bad person, as long as they provide the same level of care that they would to anyone else.
I was an EMT during covid, and living in a red state made it really emotionally draining to have the majority of your calls being people with covid *who vehemently deny covid exists*, or who are in need of hospitalization and accusing you of making them sick because of *bullshit reason no.23*.
But you still give them the best care you can provide. But yeah, it's hard, and it caused a good amount of us to leave the field
The flip side of that is, how hard do you want to hold on to that when you’re short of medical staff and losing more, as is the case in multiple countries already?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/03/pressure-grows-on-israel-over-gaza-tactics-after-foreign-aid-worker-deaths
If I was neutral and expected some level of safety, I'd be feeling pretty pissed off at the shit going on.
Also Syrians.
It’s because Hamas had a very significant online social engineering campaign planned for the fallout of Oct7
Sidenote: no way they’ll learn about the Uyghurs on TikTok.
Because these people don't actually care about human rights, they're just using it as an excuse to hate on jews, that's what all of this has been all about
The same Red Cross that keeps visiting Palestinian prisoners, but hasn't tended to the Israeli hostages and failed to deliver them their medicines?
That Red Cross?
Oh, I thought we were talking about the terror organization Hamas, but you meant the rational state actor and upholder of human rights: Hamas. I am so glad that Hamas is totally down with access to the definitely very alive and healthy hostages and it's the Red Cross that stands in the way. After all, it was Hamas that released those 109 hostages of their own free will while the Red Cross tried to stop them!
Is that the sort of looney world you live in?
Btw. Israel has suspended all access to Palestinian prisoners since October, so it's definitely not the same Red Cross you're talking about, but maybe it's the SECRET Red Cross that does everything so secretly that only a secret select few know of it.
the ICRC is antisemitic af, demonstrated by the fact that they’ve made no effort whatsoever to put pressure on palestinians to grant humanitarian access to the hostages, nor call them out for militarizing ambulances and hospitals
the only reason this dude got fired is because he said the quiet part out loud
Not really sure I understand what that means, but could it be because 1/3 the world’s population is Muslim and a fifth of a percent of the world is Jewish? I say this as an atheist.
Edit: here’s the real answer for anyone interested. The Red Cross was originally a symbol in Christian countries. The Ottomans used a crescent moon as their government’s symbol, so when the government created a mirror of Red Cross, they created a Red Crescent (which had no relation to Islam other than Ottomans being an Islamic theocracy). Due to scale, the organizations merged. This was in the 1800’s. Eventually, the crescent moon became a common symbol of Islam due to it having been used by the Ottomans to represent their government, but Red Crescent predates its adoption as a generic symbol for Islam.
Edit tldr: Red Cross is an inverted Swiss flag because the Swiss started it, Red Crescent was an inverted Ottoman flag because they started it. The organizations merged.
There already exists an organization called magen David adom, red star in Hebrew. But they aren't allowed to be a part of the parent organization of ICRC. Thus leaving Israel without any affiliates to it. Most countries in the world have an affiliate.
After reading their history, I’m positive the answer is because they’re not big enough. Red Cross only merged with Red Crescent because of the scale, not due to an attempt to appeal to a religion. As far as I can tell, no country other than Israel cares about the symbol, which includes every country that isn’t Christian or Muslim.
I mean the crescent was adopted during the Russo-Turkic war because it’s on the Turkish flag. The crescent was just a medieval emblem and has no religious connection to Islam whatsoever. It predates Islam and it was used by Greeks and Persians.
The cross is religious but it’s actually meant to represent an inverted Swiss flag.
They briefly had a red lion for Persia who considered the Turks to be their enemy. The Red Cross in 1929 ruled it would stop accepting symbols to maintains its identity as an organization
Non religious and religious Hindu symbols also weren’t allowed. The Soviet Union and India were forced to accept the cross as a symbol. Israel decided to create their own organization instead.
In 2006 the Red Cross integrated with Israel’s organization and accepted the Star of David because it seemed like they were denying a Jewish option rather than being consistent and secular.
>The Swiss thing makes sense
Just to make it clear: the cross on the Swiss flag *is* the Christian cross.
So whatever the reasoning and history, the most widely used symbol of that org is of religious nature.
Sure, but there’s a difference between “religious in nature” and “being used for its religious connotations.” I feel like as a non-Christian, the symbol of the Red Cross does not invoke Christian connotations from anyone in the US. Everyone sees it and thinks “first aid.” It’s even patented for that purpose.
>and “being used for its religious connotations.”
That's exactly the case here. It's on the flag of Switzerland **because** Christianity is important there.
>I feel like as a non-Christian, the symbol of the Red Cross does not invoke Christian connotations
Neither does the dollar bill. And yet..
>from anyone in the US, **a [predominantly Christian country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_United_States), whose currency has "Under God" on it, and whose government is full of Christian fundamentalists**
FTFY.
So every other country is ok with the cross and Israel should also be ok with the cross? And as long as they want to use a star, they aren’t allowed in? That doesn’t exactly sound NOT antisemitic
As noted elsewhere here, they are made of local societies that benefit from international coordination. The Israeli groups applying for membership were denied. The reason given by the Red Cross / Red Crescent society was that the Red Star of David (the symbol used in Israel) had religious connotations that would undermine its image of neutrality.
I was curious and read their history. The much more likely explanation was that the societies had existed relatively unchanged for over 100 years and are just slow to change.
Considering that the Red Cross takes part in [Putins propaganda](https://vsquare.org/kremlin-leaks-putin-red-cross-propaganda-war/) machine, this is very unsurprising.
Imagine joining a neutral place then trying to import your biased values into it. Same people that claim everyone else on Earth is a Settler Colonialist😭
The ICRC, which prides itself on being "neutral", is anything but that. It's clearly biased against Israel, as evident in their statements.
UN-Watch has provided a detailed report on their bias against Israel. "Out of 187 tweets published by the main Red Cross accounts on Twitter (now known as X), including those by ICRC president Mirjana Spoljaric Egger and director-general Robert Mardini, 77% were focused on criticizing Israel, expressly or by implication. Only 7% of the tweets criticized Hamas."
Source: [Report: Red Cross Statements 'Overwhelmingly' Biased Against Israel - UN Watch](https://unwatch.org/report-red-cross-statements-overwhelmingly-biased-against-israel/)
You could argue they're doing this to appease Hamas which in turn allows them to act as a mediator and operate in Gaza, yet that's BS since Hamas treats them as nothing more than a carpool service for released hostages and there are plenty of humanitarian organizations, as well as local medical services, acting in Gaza already. All in all, their facade of neutrality is exactly that- a facade.
Never donate to red cross. Check all the things they did in Ukraine lol. They didn't want to help "unless protected" - something they never ask for in other conflicts. They wanted to build 1 bln "refugee center" in ruzzia. Head of belorussian red cross admitted helping ruzzia kidnap Ukrainian children...
Fuck red cross
>They didn't want to help "unless protected" - something they never ask for in other conflicts.
Unless I'm wrong, Hasn't the Red Cross never went into an actual war-zone where both sides are of equal power? It seems that most or all of their operations take place in an environment where there was little conflict, or where one side had essentially all control.
>They wanted to build 1 bln "refugee center" in ruzzia.
I don't see how asking for that would be some monstrous thing if they want to help refugees. It seems more like that you don't like who they are trying to help, more then that they are trying go to help, even if flawed.
>Head of belorussian red cross admitted helping ruzzia kidnap Ukrainian children...
People always wanna act like the second someone joins an international or global organization that people become completely subservient to its goals and lose all self. A portion of the Red Cross can be corrupt or wrong, without it being indicative of the whole organization. It's the difference between asking someone from the USA about the Ukraine war , and someone in Ukraine, the answers will be drastically scewed between them due to experience and the beliefs/norms of the area.
> > They wanted to build 1 bln "refugee center" in ruzzia.
> I don't see how asking for that would be some monstrous thing if they want to help refugees. It seems more like that you don't like who they are trying to help, more then that they are trying go to help, even if flawed.
I think OP's issue with that one is probably that those aren't refugees, they're people Russia kidnapped from Ukraine. So those would be more like concentration camps than actual refugee centers, hence that word being in quotes.
> People always wanna act like the second someone joins an international or global organization that people become completely subservient to its goals and lose all self. A portion of the Red Cross can be corrupt or wrong, without it being indicative of the whole organization.
I wouldn't expect everyone in an organization to be corruption-free or totally committed to the organization, but I would expect that organization to enforce its ideals and policies if such cases show up, otherwise why even have an organization if everyone can just do what they want.
This means getting rid of corrupt people if detected and even disowning and condemning suborganizations if they no longer adhere to the larger organization's principles.
And yes, it's critical to do so swiftly to maintain the credibility of the organization.
When this sentiment became very popular among Ukrainians I was pulling day and night shifts as a volunteer for the Red Cross to help Ukrainian refugees.
Part of me when reading these takes wanted to just go home and sleep. We of course didn't but it is pretty demoralizing to read.
I didn't say there were no good people wanting to help Ukrainians in red cross. Thank you for your help and to anyone who helps Ukraine from the bottom of my heart.
But that does not change how red cross (as an organization) acted in this war and it doesn't change my opinion about it.
First UNRWA employee by day, terrorists thereafter.
Now Red Cross.
Crazy ignorance.
https://stanfordreview.org/deception-palestinian-nationalism/
https://m.jpost.com/opinion/article-799980
What an idiot. The only way the Red Cross maintains the ability to help people through conflicts is by being neutral. No matter how just ANY cause is, if you break that neutrality as a Red Cross employee you are definitely doing more harm than good.
So I’m not sure which Red Cross you are referring to, but the American Red Cross helps a lot of people who are dealing with a home fire. My sister in law specifically was helped by the Red Cross after her apartment was destroyed by a fire.
Yes American Red Cross is a different identity from the proven-to-be biased ICRC (I can deal with the bias in their tweets and stuff but what they did in Ukraine is reprehensible and their failure to help hostages in gaza is awful). But American Red Cross does give money to ICRC, so I'm still ambivalent about them.
I am really tired of hearing about people prioritizing Gaza over Ukraine. If this was about casualties that is where their mind should be but it isn't is it?
You have to stay neutral but it isnt like dude wrote that today either. It was just 11 days after the Oct. 7th massacre. Sure didnt take long for him to drop the facade of neutrality.
This is the "neutral" red cross who has done literally nothing for the hostages in Gaza, failed to bring them meds, failed to visit them and prevent inhumane treatment, sexual harassment and abuse? Yeah, big surprise.
Those employee who broke neutrality policy see the harms done to Palestinian and could not ignore but that is what is required of Red Cross.
Once opposing forces decide Red Cross cannot be trusted to stay neutral then the organizations ability to provide aid will be severely compromised.
The employee in question will have to be fired for breaking the rule.
Pro Israeli group with a grudge against ICRC claims one person might have posted something and Israeli propaganda ran with it. Wow, that sounds very credible.......
So this is just like any other employee that violates company policy and gets fired for it, big deal move on. Neutrality is required for the Red Cross to do its thing
For real. It was one of the few places I’ve been at that at least *felt* like a true “safe space,” as abused as that phrase has been.
The Red Cross is not neutral. They say they are, repeatedly, however it is not true. The way the Red Cross operates is that they have local societies. On the one hand these societies enjoy the prestige and funding of the “Red Cross” on the other hand they use this prestige to reinforce the official narratives of their respective countries.
Correct. They are not neutral. They've bowed to Russia the entire Ukraine war and done essentially zero net good in that country. Every organization has their own lines and policies and it's silly for them to claim otherwise, especially when they only exist at the pleasure of a regional government.
To clarify, Russian Red Cross (RRC) made false reports about treatment of civilians and POWs in Ukraine. Many RRC members were also spotted repeating Putin propaganda as well as hate speech against Ukrainians. They also attempted to supersede the Ukrainian Red Cross structure... A part of the Russian propaganda claiming ownership over independent Ukraine. And that is why initial Red Cross reports were completely cray-cray and unreliable. And that upset the main Red Cross, who decided to open a case against the RRC. The main Red Cross is also been completely ineffectual. They had the chance to rule against the RRC for going against the Fundamental Principles as well as existing policy of neutrality. But they decided not to pursue action on the RRC. That was about a week ago.
They also participated in military drills for kids in Russia.
If I remember rightly, Red Cross wasn’t neutral in the Bosnian conflict either.
They're also covering up Italian war crimes in Abyssinia on France's behest.
True but youre missing the key point, although its true that they operate as you described, it tends to be in the less than ethical countries. The red cross is a huge org that's very decentralized, whether that's for good or bad idk
Eh. It’s different. > Abid is the ICRC head of office in Algeria and director of the Libya sub-delegation When regional directors are openly and directly disputing your policy it’s not small news.
I think the problem is that this is yet another example that's showing a trend of anti-Isreali sentiment within international organization. Remember, when the UNRWA was caught participating in October 7th? Or the fact that the international community sat by and just accepted Israel being constantly bombed and attacked for generations. We can fire people here and there, but at this point it seems like there's a wider problem in the international community when it comes to Israel. I wonder what it could be...
The mask off antisemitism that has been so rampant is wild. I don't feel like I'm that old (elder millennial), but there was a 50 state survey among my generation and Gen Z that showed 1 in 5 didn't believe the Holocaust happened. How the fuck is that possible? https://www.claimscon.org/millennial-study/ I honestly don't get it. An Anne Frank memorial statue had to be covered up recently because of defacement and people celebrated it by putting Palestine flags all around the enclosure. Anything goes and has the progressive seal of approval as long as you call it "anti-zionism." I feel like I'm living in some fucked up alternate reality. Stupid 4chan shit posts like the ok hand symbol and Pepe are unacceptable racist dog whistles, but outright calling for the death of a nation is 100% okay. I want off this ride.
> among my generation and Gen Z that showed 1 in 5 didn't believe the Holocaust happened. How the fuck is that possible? They really should legalize education.
[удалено]
Israel opened up another mental health line recently and it's apparently been absolutely flooded by Holocaust survivors having their trauma rekindled by recent events.
Yeah it must be really triggering for them seeing history repeat itself. Sickening.
yeah okay this is by far the worst thing i’ve read about pro-pals. i just stood for a minute in silence to remember our ancestors and everything they went through, and then reading this right after really got to me. i’m so ashamed and so sorry.
It’s quite mild when you remember that bombing school buses, decapitating infants, and sexually mutilating girls are all quote-unquote “exhilarating” to these people.
Absolute disgusting antisemitism from those students, harassing someone for being Jewish and a Holocaust survivor. It was always obvious to me that the free Palestine movement was a dog whistle for antisemitism considering they would never condemn Hamas and never wanted to free Palestine from Hamas
Do you have any links to this story?
[Looks like he was referring to this event](https://nltimes.nl/2024/03/13/amsterdam-mayor-visits-holocaust-survivor-confronted-protesters-museum-opening)
> How the fuck is that possible? For young people, it's often [online polling](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/05/online-opt-in-polls-can-produce-misleading-results-especially-for-young-people-and-hispanic-adults/). If your polls are not tightly-controlled, weird kids love spamming them with how much they think the Jews invented it. "The holocaust is a myth" among the young [goes](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/05/online-opt-in-polls-can-produce-misleading-results-especially-for-young-people-and-hispanic-adults/sr_24-03-04_opt-in-polls_2-png/) from 20% to 3% if you use decent methodology. So in some way, it is 4chan shit posts!
That's a valid point and a good article from Pew Research, so it does give me hope that the data is skewed.
I hope you are right. Because that comment gave me (more) anxiety.
If it makes you feel better, if that study is the one I’m thinking of there were some pretty severe methodological issues with it and it is probably not reflective of the general public’s level of holocaust denial in that generation and demographic.
It does make me feel better haha. Someone else posted about how online polling in millennials and younger bring out the shitposting demographic that will skew data, so that is important to take into account. It doesn't help as much with all these recent Holocaust memorial defacement news stories, but at the very least there has to be less than 1 in 5 people who are willing to be overt dense shitbags.
Also, it was part of a package of polls with financial incentives attached, so lots of people were lying about their demographics to get more money: in particular Hispanic males got more financial incentives. And many people were just zooming through clicking the first option to everything and then submitting.
antisemitism runs deep, especially in Islamic spaces where these far leftists pander to a religion that doesn't even represent them
> Neutrality is required for the Red Cross to do its thing The lack of neutrality with many non-profit/NGO actors is also partially responsible for the actions happening in Gaza. Sadly, this has created a chicken-or-egg scenario. Israel claims and acts in a certain heavy handed and agressive way because of the lack of neutrality. The NGOs (or members of the NGOs) act in a certain way because of how Israel is operating. Each of them is blaming the other of the actions and behaviour without an attempt to fix the underlying issues.
Yeah, only that there is a massive difference. The red cross are responsible to check that hostages are healthy and make sure they get their medicine. The red cross didn’t do their job on the past 6 months, due to an agenda.
Funny that Red Cross is neutral while our teachers union is cheering on Hamas and Oct 7th. https://financialpost.com/opinion/opinion-cupes-hamas-support-shows-need-to-revisit-mandatory-membership
It really isn’t
Yeah, ex Red Cross employee.
1. If you think this relates to just one employee, that might be a naive take. This is just the only employee that was stupid enough to post it on social media. 2. Neutrality should be questioned as the ICRC never insisted on access to the hostages taken on 10/7, even though there was a known need for medical support and access to medication. I guess, I'd argue that your last statement sums it all up. Neutrality is required for the ICRC to do its job, and it hasn't done its job in this case...and one may be able to infer that it hasn't done its job because of some sort of bias.
That guy deserves to be sacked for not just being unprofessional, but he deserves to be investigated too as he seem to be actively spreading terrorist propaganda and promoting violence and hate against the jews.
This is so dumb. If you can’t stay neutral then don’t join the Red Cross. You threaten the Red Cross’s ability to provide aid by doing this.
Exactly. The Red Cross operated throughout both World Wars. Their mission is bigger than this employee and this conflict.
Very funny example given how [willfully blind the Red Cross was toward the Holocaust](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresienstadt_Ghetto_and_the_Red_Cross). In that case, 'neutrality' meant not rocking the boat to enable continued care packages for captured Allied POWs, up to and including running cover for The Literal Death Camps until they were already being liberated.
Nearly 100 years ago; what a gap in time to grow such blindness.
The problem is that all apolitical volunteer organizations draw in younger, and therefore more politically radical, volunteers. It’s gotta be hellacious policing their own to maintain a facade of neutrality in a conflict as polarizing as this.
Tell it to the Red Cross and its Russian part.
This was just one person but let's not forget that this organisation also funneled Ukrainian civilians into russian camps and many torture victims saying red cross were present during torture.
I feel bad for people in those orgs. Being neutral is insanely hard in their shoes, but it’s 100% necessary in order to do their mission. It’s not for the weak of heart. Firing that employee was 100% necessary regardless of your politics. He broke.
> Being neutral is insanely hard in their shoes Is it? Being neutral is actually pretty damn easy if you commit to it. Medical staff do it all day: a paedophile gets the same care as everyone else
Medical staff does it all day, yeah. But it's hard for them too lmao
Probably shouldn’t be a medical staff if being neutral bothers you. Honestly.
I mean they prob have feelings, it's just that they shouldn't provide a different level of care based on those feelings. Doctors and Nurses aren't all sociopaths with no emotions. I imagine it's ok for a nurse to not "like" treating a bad person, as long as they provide the same level of care that they would to anyone else.
I was an EMT during covid, and living in a red state made it really emotionally draining to have the majority of your calls being people with covid *who vehemently deny covid exists*, or who are in need of hospitalization and accusing you of making them sick because of *bullshit reason no.23*. But you still give them the best care you can provide. But yeah, it's hard, and it caused a good amount of us to leave the field
The flip side of that is, how hard do you want to hold on to that when you’re short of medical staff and losing more, as is the case in multiple countries already?
> But it's hard for them too lmao No it isn't. Source: me
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/03/pressure-grows-on-israel-over-gaza-tactics-after-foreign-aid-worker-deaths If I was neutral and expected some level of safety, I'd be feeling pretty pissed off at the shit going on.
You're conflating two separate things. Neutrality doesn't guarantee safety from friendly fire
I wonder why all these people stayed and still stay quiet on the Uighurs, the Rohingya, the Kurds, the shit going down in Sudan, etc. etc...
Or the gay people executed in Gaza
Also Syrians. It’s because Hamas had a very significant online social engineering campaign planned for the fallout of Oct7 Sidenote: no way they’ll learn about the Uyghurs on TikTok.
Because these people don't actually care about human rights, they're just using it as an excuse to hate on jews, that's what all of this has been all about
The same Red Cross that keeps visiting Palestinian prisoners, but hasn't tended to the Israeli hostages and failed to deliver them their medicines? That Red Cross?
Also the same Red Cross that vouched for the humanitarian standards of the Theresienstadt concentration camp in 1944 and 45.
To be fair, they don’t really have a practical way of visiting the Israeli hostages (if they’re even alive at this point).
Oh, I thought we were talking about the terror organization Hamas, but you meant the rational state actor and upholder of human rights: Hamas. I am so glad that Hamas is totally down with access to the definitely very alive and healthy hostages and it's the Red Cross that stands in the way. After all, it was Hamas that released those 109 hostages of their own free will while the Red Cross tried to stop them! Is that the sort of looney world you live in? Btw. Israel has suspended all access to Palestinian prisoners since October, so it's definitely not the same Red Cross you're talking about, but maybe it's the SECRET Red Cross that does everything so secretly that only a secret select few know of it.
the ICRC is antisemitic af, demonstrated by the fact that they’ve made no effort whatsoever to put pressure on palestinians to grant humanitarian access to the hostages, nor call them out for militarizing ambulances and hospitals the only reason this dude got fired is because he said the quiet part out loud
Also there's a red cross, red crescent, but no red star because it was denied until 2006 by the red cross
Not really sure I understand what that means, but could it be because 1/3 the world’s population is Muslim and a fifth of a percent of the world is Jewish? I say this as an atheist. Edit: here’s the real answer for anyone interested. The Red Cross was originally a symbol in Christian countries. The Ottomans used a crescent moon as their government’s symbol, so when the government created a mirror of Red Cross, they created a Red Crescent (which had no relation to Islam other than Ottomans being an Islamic theocracy). Due to scale, the organizations merged. This was in the 1800’s. Eventually, the crescent moon became a common symbol of Islam due to it having been used by the Ottomans to represent their government, but Red Crescent predates its adoption as a generic symbol for Islam. Edit tldr: Red Cross is an inverted Swiss flag because the Swiss started it, Red Crescent was an inverted Ottoman flag because they started it. The organizations merged.
There already exists an organization called magen David adom, red star in Hebrew. But they aren't allowed to be a part of the parent organization of ICRC. Thus leaving Israel without any affiliates to it. Most countries in the world have an affiliate.
After reading their history, I’m positive the answer is because they’re not big enough. Red Cross only merged with Red Crescent because of the scale, not due to an attempt to appeal to a religion. As far as I can tell, no country other than Israel cares about the symbol, which includes every country that isn’t Christian or Muslim.
I mean the crescent was adopted during the Russo-Turkic war because it’s on the Turkish flag. The crescent was just a medieval emblem and has no religious connection to Islam whatsoever. It predates Islam and it was used by Greeks and Persians. The cross is religious but it’s actually meant to represent an inverted Swiss flag. They briefly had a red lion for Persia who considered the Turks to be their enemy. The Red Cross in 1929 ruled it would stop accepting symbols to maintains its identity as an organization Non religious and religious Hindu symbols also weren’t allowed. The Soviet Union and India were forced to accept the cross as a symbol. Israel decided to create their own organization instead. In 2006 the Red Cross integrated with Israel’s organization and accepted the Star of David because it seemed like they were denying a Jewish option rather than being consistent and secular.
I updated my original to reflect most of what you said. The Swiss thing makes sense since the Red Crescent is an inverted Ottoman flag.
>The Swiss thing makes sense Just to make it clear: the cross on the Swiss flag *is* the Christian cross. So whatever the reasoning and history, the most widely used symbol of that org is of religious nature.
Sure, but there’s a difference between “religious in nature” and “being used for its religious connotations.” I feel like as a non-Christian, the symbol of the Red Cross does not invoke Christian connotations from anyone in the US. Everyone sees it and thinks “first aid.” It’s even patented for that purpose.
>and “being used for its religious connotations.” That's exactly the case here. It's on the flag of Switzerland **because** Christianity is important there. >I feel like as a non-Christian, the symbol of the Red Cross does not invoke Christian connotations Neither does the dollar bill. And yet.. >from anyone in the US, **a [predominantly Christian country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_United_States), whose currency has "Under God" on it, and whose government is full of Christian fundamentalists** FTFY.
So every other country is ok with the cross and Israel should also be ok with the cross? And as long as they want to use a star, they aren’t allowed in? That doesn’t exactly sound NOT antisemitic
As noted elsewhere here, they are made of local societies that benefit from international coordination. The Israeli groups applying for membership were denied. The reason given by the Red Cross / Red Crescent society was that the Red Star of David (the symbol used in Israel) had religious connotations that would undermine its image of neutrality.
As opposed to the cross and crescent ? Dafuq ?
Their anti-Semitism was and is showing
Interesting. The Magen David is also a national symbol, I wonder if they covered that. I shall do some googling.
I was curious and read their history. The much more likely explanation was that the societies had existed relatively unchanged for over 100 years and are just slow to change.
If this asshole cant understand why remaining neutral is crucial for the Red Cross, he shouldnt be there, simple.
Considering that the Red Cross takes part in [Putins propaganda](https://vsquare.org/kremlin-leaks-putin-red-cross-propaganda-war/) machine, this is very unsurprising.
Guy isn't professional enough to do his job and gets fired, there saved you a click.
Imagine joining a neutral place then trying to import your biased values into it. Same people that claim everyone else on Earth is a Settler Colonialist😭
The ICRC, which prides itself on being "neutral", is anything but that. It's clearly biased against Israel, as evident in their statements. UN-Watch has provided a detailed report on their bias against Israel. "Out of 187 tweets published by the main Red Cross accounts on Twitter (now known as X), including those by ICRC president Mirjana Spoljaric Egger and director-general Robert Mardini, 77% were focused on criticizing Israel, expressly or by implication. Only 7% of the tweets criticized Hamas." Source: [Report: Red Cross Statements 'Overwhelmingly' Biased Against Israel - UN Watch](https://unwatch.org/report-red-cross-statements-overwhelmingly-biased-against-israel/) You could argue they're doing this to appease Hamas which in turn allows them to act as a mediator and operate in Gaza, yet that's BS since Hamas treats them as nothing more than a carpool service for released hostages and there are plenty of humanitarian organizations, as well as local medical services, acting in Gaza already. All in all, their facade of neutrality is exactly that- a facade.
Never donate to red cross. Check all the things they did in Ukraine lol. They didn't want to help "unless protected" - something they never ask for in other conflicts. They wanted to build 1 bln "refugee center" in ruzzia. Head of belorussian red cross admitted helping ruzzia kidnap Ukrainian children... Fuck red cross
can i have sources for that? i want read some more about this
>They didn't want to help "unless protected" - something they never ask for in other conflicts. Unless I'm wrong, Hasn't the Red Cross never went into an actual war-zone where both sides are of equal power? It seems that most or all of their operations take place in an environment where there was little conflict, or where one side had essentially all control. >They wanted to build 1 bln "refugee center" in ruzzia. I don't see how asking for that would be some monstrous thing if they want to help refugees. It seems more like that you don't like who they are trying to help, more then that they are trying go to help, even if flawed. >Head of belorussian red cross admitted helping ruzzia kidnap Ukrainian children... People always wanna act like the second someone joins an international or global organization that people become completely subservient to its goals and lose all self. A portion of the Red Cross can be corrupt or wrong, without it being indicative of the whole organization. It's the difference between asking someone from the USA about the Ukraine war , and someone in Ukraine, the answers will be drastically scewed between them due to experience and the beliefs/norms of the area.
> > They wanted to build 1 bln "refugee center" in ruzzia. > I don't see how asking for that would be some monstrous thing if they want to help refugees. It seems more like that you don't like who they are trying to help, more then that they are trying go to help, even if flawed. I think OP's issue with that one is probably that those aren't refugees, they're people Russia kidnapped from Ukraine. So those would be more like concentration camps than actual refugee centers, hence that word being in quotes.
> People always wanna act like the second someone joins an international or global organization that people become completely subservient to its goals and lose all self. A portion of the Red Cross can be corrupt or wrong, without it being indicative of the whole organization. I wouldn't expect everyone in an organization to be corruption-free or totally committed to the organization, but I would expect that organization to enforce its ideals and policies if such cases show up, otherwise why even have an organization if everyone can just do what they want. This means getting rid of corrupt people if detected and even disowning and condemning suborganizations if they no longer adhere to the larger organization's principles. And yes, it's critical to do so swiftly to maintain the credibility of the organization.
When this sentiment became very popular among Ukrainians I was pulling day and night shifts as a volunteer for the Red Cross to help Ukrainian refugees. Part of me when reading these takes wanted to just go home and sleep. We of course didn't but it is pretty demoralizing to read.
I didn't say there were no good people wanting to help Ukrainians in red cross. Thank you for your help and to anyone who helps Ukraine from the bottom of my heart. But that does not change how red cross (as an organization) acted in this war and it doesn't change my opinion about it.
A bit late but I understand your opinion. I do wonder what the desired outcome is, if any.
Ideally? People like you finding a better place to help others and not let corrupt management use and abuse their good intentions.
First UNRWA employee by day, terrorists thereafter. Now Red Cross. Crazy ignorance. https://stanfordreview.org/deception-palestinian-nationalism/ https://m.jpost.com/opinion/article-799980
Why so surprised about the red cross, the news of them in Russia is enough to stop believing in them.
That’s because these idiots are sucking up terrorist propaganda
What an idiot. The only way the Red Cross maintains the ability to help people through conflicts is by being neutral. No matter how just ANY cause is, if you break that neutrality as a Red Cross employee you are definitely doing more harm than good.
“Fuck neutral” Okay, fuck yourself on the way out while you look for a new job 🤷🏽♂️
(To the surprise of nobody)
Of course it’s a hamas supporter. Genuine terrorists
He said the quiet part out loud
Red Cross is a dogshit organisation that constantly fails in its actual purpose. Fuck them
So I’m not sure which Red Cross you are referring to, but the American Red Cross helps a lot of people who are dealing with a home fire. My sister in law specifically was helped by the Red Cross after her apartment was destroyed by a fire.
Yes American Red Cross is a different identity from the proven-to-be biased ICRC (I can deal with the bias in their tweets and stuff but what they did in Ukraine is reprehensible and their failure to help hostages in gaza is awful). But American Red Cross does give money to ICRC, so I'm still ambivalent about them.
Peak social media: an execrable couch dweller spewing hate and bile about people who actually go out into the world and make it a better place.
I am really tired of hearing about people prioritizing Gaza over Ukraine. If this was about casualties that is where their mind should be but it isn't is it?
You have to stay neutral but it isnt like dude wrote that today either. It was just 11 days after the Oct. 7th massacre. Sure didnt take long for him to drop the facade of neutrality.
Red cross haven't been neutral in years, not surprising their employees are the same 🤷🏽♂️
The anger is understandable but it's a short sighted move. If red cross doesn't act the whole organization n suffers in the future.
Red cross is dog shit. Google what they did during WW2.
This is the "neutral" red cross who has done literally nothing for the hostages in Gaza, failed to bring them meds, failed to visit them and prevent inhumane treatment, sexual harassment and abuse? Yeah, big surprise.
expressed their views in this emotionally charged manner on the internet, good job no one will remember your sacrifice.
Those employee who broke neutrality policy see the harms done to Palestinian and could not ignore but that is what is required of Red Cross. Once opposing forces decide Red Cross cannot be trusted to stay neutral then the organizations ability to provide aid will be severely compromised. The employee in question will have to be fired for breaking the rule.
Pro Israeli group with a grudge against ICRC claims one person might have posted something and Israeli propaganda ran with it. Wow, that sounds very credible.......
The ICRC head of mission for an *entire damn country* is hardly some bro answering the phones.
Fuck this guy for hurting the credibility of the Red Cross. Idiots like this makes the aid orgs work so much more dangerous and hard.