Médecins Sans Frontière (MSF) — known in English as Doctors Without Borders — is a large humanitarian organization that provides medical assistance around the world.

While much of its work is with victims of natural disasters, disease outbreaks, and internally displaced people, one fourth of the group’s activity is helping people affected by armed conflict.

In order to do this work, MSF pledges neutrality and impartiality, as only on that basis can it demand that parties to conflicts allow it unimpeded access to help those in need.

But Israel is concerned that humanitarian non-profits are exploiting their Gaza access to shield militants and work against Israel politically.

Therefore, the Israeli government decided last March to require these organizations to provide detailed information about their activities and the identities of their employees, giving them a generous 10 months to comply. This information will enable Israel to make sure these organizations are exclusively humanitarian, and that their employees are not Hamas members or anti-Israel activists seeking to enter Gaza in disguise.

MSF loudly protested, claiming that revealing the identity of its employees to Israel would put them in danger, and that these requirements are really a cynical attempt by Israel to force MSF to abandon its mission.

But MSF has made numerous anti-Israel statements, on social media and on its website, which the Israel government has compiled in a report.

MSF has repeatedly claimed that Israel is guilty of ethnic cleansing, genocide, and systematic extermination. It has called for an arms embargo against Israel, while praising and supporting the BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) movement. MSF also says that Israel is guilty of colonization, systemic oppression, and apartheid.

To be clear, the issue is not whether one agrees with these views (which are greatly disputed). The question is whether an organization that publicly accuses Israel of genocide, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing — and campaigns for boycotts and arms embargoes against it — can still claim to be neutral in any ordinary sense of the term.

MSF claims that this is the case. It says “Bearing Witness” is also one of its core values. It states that, “The principles of impartiality and neutrality are not synonymous with silence … we are duty-bound to raise our voices and speak out on behalf of our patients.”

In their view, as long as they provide medical care without discrimination and keep actual military combatants off their payroll, no amount of political action compromises their neutrality and the privileges it entails.

Of course, there is a vast chasm between the statements MSF and its employees are making and what “bearing witness” requires. MSF and its staff could describe the problems they face in fulfilling their medical mission, such as lack of supplies, equipment, and the like, without assigning blame or taking sides. Whether the tragic Gaza situation is the fault of Israel, Hamas, or others is a matter of opinion, which a neutral party should not voice.

Genocide is a legal determination that hinges on intent and military necessity, neither of which can be inferred from treating the wounded. When a humanitarian organization claims otherwise, it oversteps its bounds.

That is the position of the Red Cross, another humanitarian organization pledged to neutrality. The Red Cross does not make public accusations, specifically in order to maintain trust and keep the working relationships that enable it to fulfill its mission. And even though many in Israel believe the Red Cross should have pressed harder to visit the hostages, the Israeli government has made no effort to stop the Red Cross from operating in Gaza — and in fact, even cooperated with the Red Cross to facilitate hostage exchanges.

The MSF has become so critical of Israel that even former MSF Secretary General Alain Destexhe says the organization is now “biased, partial, and militant,” and accuses it of effectively siding with Hamas.

Israel has every right to tell MSF that the anti-Israel political campaign it tries to pass off as “bearing witness” is in direct conflict with its obligation to neutrality. If MSF wants to campaign against Israel, it has no right to expect Israel’s cooperation and help.

If Israel ultimately forces MSF to leave Gaza, MSF will likely portray this as proof that Israel is attempting to cut off humanitarian aid. But Israel has made clear through its continued cooperation with other neutral organizations that it welcomes bona fide humanitarian assistance. The predicament MSF now faces follows directly from its decision to mix humanitarian work with political campaigning. In doing so, MSF has put both its access to Gaza and its patients’ care at risk.

Shlomo Levin is the author of the Human Rights Haggadah, and he uses short fiction to explore human rights at https://shalzed.com/