Recently, while scrolling through Facebook, I came across a sponsored post from the NGO Doctors Without Borders, also called Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF).
The post said: “Israeli forces’ unrelenting, indiscriminate strikes have reduced much of the Gaza Strip to rubble.” It claimed that MSF has 400 staff currently working in Gaza to help alleviate the suffering. This was followed by a request for donations, along with a disclaimer that money received might not actually go to Gaza but may be spent anywhere in the world.
Indiscriminate military strikes are a war crime, but determining whether a strike is indiscriminate requires a tremendous amount of information: The intended target, the intelligence behind the target selection, which weapon was used and so forth.
While the destruction in Gaza is certainly extensive, it is not possible to conclude that an Israeli attack was indiscriminate based on news coverage. Nor are eyewitnesses in Gaza able to make that determination either. Even investigative bodies like the International Criminal Court have so far held off on leveling such an accusation.
So, I was quite surprised to see an ostensibly neutral humanitarian organization such as this making that claim on social media.
I checked the group’s website for more information. It turns out that, on their Gaza webpage, they are also calling for “an immediate and sustained ceasefire” and for all governments “to do whatever in their power to influence Israel and stop supporting the ongoing siege and bloodshed.”
But isn’t MSF a non-political, humanitarian organization? In fact, on their “Who We Are” page, they claim to be “independent, impartial and neutral.” Calling on all governments to stop Israel’s “siege and bloodshed” doesn’t sound impartial or neutral at all.
On the same page, MSF also state that they are committed to “Bearing Witness.” They explain that this means impartiality and neutrality are not synonymous with silence and they feel a duty to speak out on behalf of their patients. But wouldn’t this mean asking for their patients to receive more supplies, better care and so forth? How does “bearing witness” lead to taking a political position on who’s at fault for the war?
Buried deep on the MSF website is a page titled “Your Questions About Our Work in Gaza, Answered.” Here, they try to justify why they are taking these stances. One question on this page asks: “Why are your statements so critical of Israel? Why are you not talking about Hamas?”
They answer: “As humanitarians, we grieve for all civilian lives lost, and the vast majority of the victims of this conflict are civilians, including many elderly people, women and children. Violence against civilians is never justified and all civilians deserve protection.”
“MSF’s reporting is based on what our patients and staff tell us they are seeing on the ground in Gaza, where the Israeli military campaign and siege have had devastating consequences,” they assert. “The health care system has collapsed, and hospitals have run out of drugs, medical supplies and fuel for generators. People have limited access to food, water, shelter and electricity. And the death toll continues to rise.”
In other words, they have no answer. They give no reason why they aren’t criticizing Hamas for its role in delaying or stealing aid, attacking Israel and prolonging the war, holding hostages and hiding behind civilians. They simply reiterate how bad things are.
The next question asks: “Why is MSF calling for a ceasefire? Aren’t you a non-partisan organization?”
They answer: “We are calling for a sustained ceasefire because widespread and indiscriminate attacks on civilians—including attacks on health care—have made it impossible to deliver the humanitarian aid needed in Gaza.”
Let’s overlook the gratuitous repetition of the accusation that Israel’s attacks are indiscriminate and grant that MSF may be right that the current situation makes it difficult if not impossible to distribute adequate aid. Isn’t it difficult or impossible to distribute adequate aid in nearly every war zone? All wars cause death, destruction, and mass suffering.
I would completely understand if MSF said it is a humanitarian imperative to call for an end to warfare. Don’t we all feel that way? But in other war zones, they merely call for civilians to be protected without passing judgment on the reasons for the fighting. Why do they feel entitled to demand a ceasefire in this case?
Personally, I am very sympathetic to MSF’s mission of providing humanitarian medical assistance to all. They are the type of group I’d like to support. Unfortunately, by betraying their own principles of impartiality and neutrality to join the global campaign to vilify Israel, they weaken themselves. Not only do they lose potential supporters like me but they forfeit the vital credibility they need to wade into conflict zones to fulfill their mission.
I wondered how MSF volunteers working in Israel might feel about this. Maybe they could be an avenue to address the group’s leadership?
On MSF’s “How We’re Responding to the War in Gaza” page, they admit that despite all of Israel’s wounded and suffering, along with hundreds of thousands of Israelis displaced from their homes, they aren’t offering any medical programs in Israel at all.
Maybe that tells us everything we need to know about MSF.
