Red Cross chief says she tried to arrange Gaza hostage visits through talks with Hamas's Haniyeh

The ICRC president said her goal was to arrange visits to Israeli hostages held in Gaza. Such visits matter because the organization could check the hostages’ condition and help inform their families. Spoljaric said the discussions were frank but confidential.

She met former Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh twice in Qatar about the issue. She also met Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The ICRC has tools for negotiating humanitarian access, but it cannot force visits when the parties do not agree.

Spoljaric said the ICRC never gained access to the hostages. She described visiting them as more complicated than bringing them home. The effort shows how humanitarian diplomacy can continue even when political negotiations are stalled, but it also shows the limits of confidential talks without cooperation from those holding detainees.

The ICRC is an independent humanitarian organization that works during armed conflicts. Its purpose is to protect people affected by war and promote respect for international humanitarian law. It does not take sides in the fighting. That neutrality helps it speak with governments, armed groups, and other parties.

In practice, the ICRC may visit detainees, seek information about missing people, reunite families, support medical care, and help arrange releases or transfers. The article describes its work returning Gaza hostages and conducting highly complex operations among armed men and rubble. It also says the organization sought access to hostages but never received it.

The ICRC’s role depends on access and cooperation. Spoljaric said neutrality had to be defended for more than 160 years because losing trust could make such operations impossible. Its work can reduce suffering, but it cannot independently compel armed groups to open detention sites.

The figure was 137. Eight hostages released during the December 2025 temporary ceasefire wrote to the ICRC and asked it to visit those still held in Gaza. Their appeal focused attention on the need to check the remaining hostages and provide information about their condition.

The request came after the former hostages had experienced captivity themselves. The ICRC could potentially visit detainees, assess basic welfare, and communicate information to families. However, access requires agreement and safe conditions. Spoljaric said the organization had no access to the hostages despite discussions with Hamas and Israel.

The article states that no visits ever took place. That means 137 was the reported number when the letter was written, not necessarily a current figure. The episode illustrates the gap between humanitarian requests and actual access during a war.

A hostage release is a single transfer, but a visit requires access to a person who remains under another party’s control. The ICRC must reach the site, communicate safely, verify the hostage’s condition, and preserve trust with all sides. In an active war, those conditions can be difficult to secure.

Spoljaric called visits “much more complicated” than returning hostages home. She said the ICRC could only work with the tools available. She met Ismail Haniyeh twice in Qatar and also discussed the issue with Benjamin Netanyahu, yet the organization never accessed the hostages.

The result is prolonged uncertainty. Families cannot receive verified information, while the ICRC cannot assess or report on the hostages’ treatment. Spoljaric said the objective should always be to bring hostages back, because delay makes the situation more complicated and can cost lives.

When the ICRC cannot visit, families lose an important possible source of verified information. They may not know where relatives are held, whether they are alive, or how they are being treated. Spoljaric said the ICRC must inform families about the whereabouts or fate of their relatives.

The article gives a direct example. Eight released hostages asked the ICRC to visit the 137 people then still held in Gaza, but no visits occurred. The ICRC therefore could not personally check those hostages or provide families with information based on direct access.

This uncertainty can continue while negotiations drag on. Spoljaric said the longer hostage-taking lasts, the more complicated it becomes, and argued that earlier pressure might have saved more lives. Without access or release, families remain dependent on whatever information the parties provide.

The ICRC insists on neutrality so warring parties can see it as a humanitarian intermediary rather than a political actor. That perception can open channels to people held by opposing forces. It also lets the organization speak with different sides while focusing on protection and humanitarian work.

Spoljaric pointed to the return of many Gaza hostages. She described ICRC colleagues as unarmed among thousands, or tens of thousands, of armed men and surrounded by rubble. She said nobody would have trusted that operation if the ICRC had not defended its neutrality for more than 160 years.

Neutrality does not guarantee access. The ICRC still failed to visit the hostages held in Gaza. But Spoljaric said changing that principle even once could make the organization political and destroy trust. Maintaining neutrality therefore remains central to future humanitarian operations.

The Geneva Conventions and related international humanitarian law require humane treatment of people detained during war. They prohibit torture, cruel treatment, and humiliating or degrading treatment. They also require protection for wounded and sick people and basic safeguards for detainees. These rules apply regardless of which side holds a person.

A core obligation is to record and communicate information about detainees. Families should be able to learn the whereabouts or fate of relatives, subject to limited lawful restrictions. The ICRC often helps transmit information and seek access, but humanitarian law does not make every visit automatic in every situation. Legal duties vary with the person’s status and the conflict.

Spoljaric said Israel had both a moral and legal obligation to restore visits to Israeli security detainees. She also stressed that capturing a soldier does not automatically make that person a criminal. The broader principle is humane treatment and accountability for everyone detained.