Selective Moralism in Hamas-Israel Conflict

The scene: armed terrorists parade three gaunt hostages on a stage, at gunpoint, to publicly thank the captors who starved, abused, and tortured them for over fifteen months.

If the hostages were Americans and the terrorists were ISIS, global outrage would ensue. But week after week in 2025, the hostages paraded on stage are Jewish Israelis and their captors are Hamas. Cue the deafening silence.

Since October 7, humanitarians (individuals and organizations alike) pretty much have remained silent about the Israeli hostages, unlike any targeted attack against a minority group in recent history. The general public’s stark and distinct reaction to crises afflicting Jews begs the question: why don’t Jews count?

The hostages—stolen from Israel over 500 days ago—are dying, starving, sick, and maimed, as well as victims of sexual and physical violence and psychological torture. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), arguably the world’s preeminent humanitarian organization, has seen some of the 251 hostages exactly once: on the day that hostage is released from Hamas captivity (alive or in a coffin). The ICRC never has met with any of the 59 hostages who remain captives in Gaza under Hamas’s brutal reign.

The ICRC fancies itself an organization with a “humanitarian mission” and bears the  motto: “We take action, not sides.” In the Hamas-Israel conflict, nothing can be further from the truth. The ICRC is physically present in Gaza and (in the ICRC’s own words) has placed there “a team of medical, surgical experts currently supporting hospitals and delivering life-saving trauma surgery,” and ICRC “teams have also distributed essential household items to thousands of internally displaced people, supported the water and sanitation systems, and helped deliver food and nutrition items to vulnerable populations.”

These efforts, while certainly admirable, have benefitted Palestinians only. In over sixteen months, the ICRC has done absolutely nothing to ensure that the 251 hostages received surgical care, lifesaving medication, or food or were kept in sanitary conditions. Despite the ICRC’s presence in Gaza, its “team of medical surgical experts” never once examined Hersh Goldberg-Polin, Maya Regev, Mia Shem, or Emily Damari, twenty-something-year-old Israeli music lovers whose limbs or extremities were blown apart by Hamas weapons on October 7. Nor did the ICRC “teams” (notably, plural) who distribute aid in Gaza ensure that food or water reached Or Levy, Ohad Ben Ami, or Eli Sharabi, who emerged from Hamas captivity visibly emaciated and malnourished several weeks ago.

The ICRC’s failure to treat, feed, and otherwise support these seven Jewish Israelis is universally true. Not one Israeli hostage in Gaza has received medical care or humanitarian aid from the ICRC.  Read that again.

Most alarmingly, the ICRC isn’t the only humanitarian institution that is guilty of ignoring the Israel hostage crisis. So is the United Nations, countless women’s organizations, social media activists, and celebrities. Since when did it become “humanitarian” to advocate for some human tragedies with fervor and to ignore others?

Put simply, the Hamas-Israel conflict is plagued by selective moralism. This war has become mutually exclusive: you can advocate for Palestinians, or you can advocate for the hostages, but not both. And the so-called humanitarians (looking at you, Greta Thurnberg) overwhelmingly have chosen to advocate for Palestinians and to remain silent about the hostages.

Or, on the rare occasion that they pay lip-service to the Israeli hostages’ plight, the humanitarians’ words are contextualized: “It’s tragic that the Bibas babies died, but what about all the Palestinian kids who were killed?” Such “what about-isms” unequivocally are unique to Jews and Israel. Can you think of another moment in history when condemnation of murder is conditional, let alone the murder of a baby?

The “justifications” for selective moralism are endless. More Gazans have died in the war than Israelis. The Israeli Defense Force’s response to October 7 is “disproportionate.” These are just two examples of convenient excuses. The death toll in Gaza is alleged to be in the tens of thousands, but these numbers are unreliably reported by the Hamas-run ministry of health and include eliminated terrorists, not just civilians. By comparison, in post-9/11 war zones (including Afghanistan and Iraq), the United States killed far more people. Yet did “Free Afghanistan” and “Free Iraq” posts flood social media? Did so-called activists wear pins at the Grammys and Oscars lambasting the U.S.? No and no. These civilian deaths were viewed as an expected consequence of a war that the U.S. was justified to fight to avenge 9/11. Despite the same fact pattern (i.e. terrorists mass murdering innocent civilians in the most despicable and intentional ways), the humanitarians label Israel’s response to 10/7 as a “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing.” Has America been accused of genocide or ethnic cleaning for the thousands of deaths it caused in the Middle East?

Humanitarians do need to pick a side—whether they indeed are humanitarians or selective moralists. To be a true humanitarian, one must advocate for all humans without couching their statements in what about-isms. A humanitarian who condemns terrorism against minority groups should equally and consistently condemn the horrors of October 7 and also advocate tirelessly for the Israeli hostages. Right now, the ICRC, the UN, and their friends are not humanitarians. Their refusal to stand up for Israel and Jews speaks volumes: in their eyes, Israel and Jews don’t count.