Mr Schaerer (“head of delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Israel and occupied territories”) has been trying to tell people about why the ICRC takes the position it does on the question of Israel and Judea and Samaria. You can read his piece in the Jerusalem Post, here.
The problem for Mr Schaerer and the ICRC is that he is demonstrably wrong. (See the Elder of Ziyon’s coverage, here.) So my question is, why does he write what he does? Is he stupid? Is he the mouthpiece for somebody else’s garbage? Is he politically motivated, knowing what the truth is, but wanting to mislead? What makes him and the ICRC so anti-Israel?
And why has Schaerer given the JP that piece to publish? Did he feel under pressure to respond to the criticism vented in the direction of the ICRC? If so, his piece is inadequate. But maybe he or his cronies are so blinded they just cannot see the truth.
This extract from one of the Jerusalem Post comments (first seen at the Elder of Ziyon’s coverage) is damn fine and on point:
In all these cases, the facts on the ground certainly proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the territories in question are under occupation. Additionally, all these territories were acquired through wars of aggression, making them illegal, whereas Israel’s occupation of the West Bank was the result of a defensive war, which makes it lawful. And yet it is on Israel that the ICRC keeps picking mercilessly, the only case of lawful occupation, while ignoring all the illegal ones! Could it be that the ICRC is scared to offend the culprits in all these other cases, whereas it knows it has nothing to fear from Israel in terms of retaliation? If not, how come the ICRC doesn’t have extensive delegations of expatriates and local employees (as it does in Israel where they criss-cross the country taking care of every need of the Palestinians) in Tibet, Northern Cyprus and the Western Sahara? This is the core of the problem the ICRC faces when it keeps accusing Israel of something it is not guilty of while ignoring the countries who are really guilty of the offenses it accuses Israel of: by accepting to apply a double standard against Israel alone, the ICRC has shed much of its credibility as a so-called neutral agency. International law applies equally to all nations, or it applies to none, but it can’t be applied to just a few and ignored by the rest.
Is the ICRC feeling the pinch? If Mr Schaerer quits his job because of the heat, and his inability to respond properly to the situation, maybe I should put myself up for it. After all, it’s clear on the basis of his latest piece that I have a far better understanding of International law than he does. Maybe he thinks you don’t actually need to read the sources?
[PS: notice the man’s job title is “head of delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Israel and occupied territories”. Did anyone ever think that was a bit judgmental, for a supposedly neutral organization?]