Red Cross Symbol

[Freakshow]

Don't get me wrong I believe that the refusal to adopt a star of David whilst still retaining the crescent and the cross is wrong. All I am saying is that you can't, if you've allowed the crescent or cross to be used for religious reasons, then argue from a point of logic (there may be of course practical or pragmatic reasons - they do not have to be logical) against adopting the star of David as well.

However as I say this to me seems to be wrong way around, surely the sensible approach is to campaign to get the Red Cross to drop all religious symbols not to argue that it should adopt more?

What is the argument or reason for wanting it to adopt more? Political correctness?

I personally don't care whether they take the course of allowing any, or allowing none. As long as they pick one of those two, and don't pick-and-choose some symbols to allow, and others to not allow.

From a practical standpoint, it is probably easiest to just not allow any.

 

[Jas]

I think before we can conclude that this is prejudice just against the Jewish religion we need to know the history of adoption of new symbols. Perhaps it isn't uncommon for them to refuse to add a new symbol, perhaps many countries/religions/other groups have tried and also been rejected. Anyone know?

From what I can tell, it's specifically because of prejudice against Israel. The American Red Cross has witheld its dues as a result.

There is growing pressure on the Red Cross federation to change its policy. Since 2000, the American Red Cross has protested the discrimination against Israel by withholding $30 million in dues from the federation. Unless something changes before the 181 Red Cross and Red Crescent societies meet in November, the American Red Cross will have withheld its dues for five years. That means it could have its voting rights suspended, which would be a setback for both the American Red Cross and the international Red Cross movement.

http://www.magendavidadom.org/newsitem.asp?Flash=322

And from the first link I posted:

Arab countries have previously resisted any attempt to accommodate the Israelis within the international movement.

 

[Cleon]

According to Wikipedia:

Since its creation, Magen David Adom has been denied membership in the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) since it refused to replace its red Star of David emblem with a red cross.


The official reason for the denial of membership is concerns about symbol proliferation; at the same 1929 conference which granted use of the Red Crescent and Red Lion And Sun, a limitation was placed on acceptance of any further emblems. (The "Red Star of David" symbol was not submitted to the ICRC until 1931).


Similar concerns of India, Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) and the former USSR regarding the use of non-Hindu and overtly religious symbols were also dismissed by the ICRC, but their national bodies chose to adopt the Red Cross as their official emblems in order to gain entry.

Now then, first, I think it's silly and they should allow the Magen David Adom in. No reason not to, IMO. As much as I'm an anti-Zionist, this is hardly the place for some statement of principle against the legitimacy of the Israeli state.

However, before people go screaming "anti-Semitism," remember the old adage about not attributing to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity--or in this case, bureacracy.

 

[Euromutt]

I understand why it's the red crystal symbol, but I still can't figure out why they weren't allowing a Star of David if they were allowing the other two.

Oh, I see.

Historical reasons play a large part. Basically, when the "distinctive signs" were being codified in various Geneva Conventions (the Red Cross in the Convention of 1906, the Red Crescent and Red Lion* in those of 1929), Israel was not yet in existence, so there wasn't any national delegation pushing to have a red Shield of David acknowledged as a "distinctive sign."

You can really see the historical progression in this. the 1906 Convention says:

Art. 18. Out of respect to Switzerland the heraldic emblem of the red cross on a white ground, formed by the reversal of the federal colors, is continued as the emblem and distinctive sign of the sanitary service of armies.

The 1929 Convention expands on this, stating:

Art. 19. As a compliment to Switzerland, the heraldic emblem of the red cross on a white ground, formed by reversing the Federal colours, is retained as the emblem and distinctive sign of the medical service of armed forces.
Nevertheless, in the case of countries which already use, in place of the red cross, the red crescent or the red lion and sun on a white ground as a distinctive sign, these emblems are also recognized by the terms of the present Convention.

Italics mine. Article 38 of the 1949 Convention says the same thing. The diplomatic conference which resulted in the 1949 Conventions started on 21-Apr-1949; Israel wasn't admitted to the UN until 11-May-1949, so it's entirely possible Israel wasn't even represented at that conference either.

Moreover, it's important to note that the recognition extended to the Red Crescent and Red Lion in 1929 was a codification of a pre-existing practice. It's not that, say, the Turkish delegation at the 1929 conference said "can we use a red crescent instead of the red cross we're using now?" And it wasn't so much about achieving a consensus on which symbol(s) to use, as it was about agreeing not to shoot at each others' medical personnel, vehicles and facilities. Thus, the focus was on agreeing that certain "distinctive signs" denoted medical stuff and shouldn't be fired upon, and not so much on the precise nature of those signs.

In principle, Israel should be able to demand recognition of the red Shield of David as a distinctive sign on the basis of this historic precedent, but diplomatic conferences on the Geneva Conventions are few and far between (the 1977 conference resulted in protocols additional to the 1949 conventions, not in new conventions), and I imagine the various Arab nations which were hostile to Israel for much of the period since 1948 were never willing to acknowledge the red Shield of David as a distinctive sign anyway.

* - Essentially, the Persian emblem of a lion holding a sword in one forepaw, with a sun overhead, only done in red. It was used as a "distinctive sign" only by Persia/Iran until the Islamic revolution of 1979.

 

[a_unique_person]

But if the crescent was accepted, why can't they accept the Star of David.



And I agree with you on that, but the thing is, they've already accepted religious symbols, so why not this one?

No other religious or national symbols were accepted, full stop, after the red crescent was. To do so for any other country or group was seen to be opening up the Red Cross to too much politicisation. The Japanese, (Shinto), Indians (Hindi), etc, all use the Cross, for example. To claim it is singling out Jews is stretching things a bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross_(symbol) details the whole story.

 

[Cain]

Last night the "Majority Report" on Air America was playing clips of O'Reilly claiming the cross is an internationally recognized symbol that transcends religious connotations (as evidenced by the Red Cross and tombstones). Heh, heh.

This thread seems to deal with recurrent issues of toleration and acceptance. Not every culture or group can have their own parades and celebrations in New York City because nothing would get done, the trash wouldn't get taken etc. Seeing as how the Red Cross is a quintessentially internationalist organization, it doesn't seem to make a great deal of sense to accomodate one "Jewish state". And just because Christians and Muslims can stake slightly more reasonable claims, their sheer numbers are not strong enough to maintain secterian symbols when the whole point is to estabish neutrality. Let's get one symbol and not have anything "inside" it. That's rubbish.

 

[Euromutt]

I'll add, and I speak from personal experience, that the International Committee for the Red Cross are not the easiest of people to work with. Until recently, you couldn't directly apply for a job with the ICRC unless you were a Swiss citizen. As a non-Swiss national, you could only join the ICRC by first getting a job with your national Red Cross organization, and then applying for a job with the ICRC. (And even then, they were stroppy. If you were from a country which doesn't suffer regular humanitarian disasters, they'd turn you down because you lacked experience; if you were from a country which did, they'd turn you down because your national organization needed you more, etc.)

I suspect the ICRC's refusal to acknowledge the Shield of David has more to do with Swiss chauvinism that with anti-Semitism. They probably weren't too happy about having to acknowledge the red crescent either, but had to knuckle under because otherwise the Ottoman Empire wouldn't play ball or something.

 

[Jorghnassen]

You know, if back in the day, they had called it "the Red Plus Sign", we wouldn't be having this conversation...

 

[webfusion]

Watch out for Hurricanes!

I'm slightly confused -- this is a diamond shaped border, and the other symbols (a Cross, or Star, or Crescent, or FSM) go inside of it? Why? How come it doesn't just replace all the other symbols?!!

 

[Mycroft]

What is the argument or reason for wanting it to adopt more? Political correctness?

That the Red Cross being an international organization, it's appropriate to reflect the cultures of the people it serves.

 

[Mycroft]

I think the Red Crystal is a great idea; by introducing a symbol which has no religious overtones, either to the bearer or the perceiver, you remove ideological considerations from the question of whether or not to respect humanitarian symbols, while permitting everyone to also use their own accepted symbols for medical vehicles and personnel.

This is disgusting. Not only does the Red Cross suddenly decide to favor the New Age religion by adopting a crystal as its symbol, but the action implies that crystals have healing properties as well!

 

[a_unique_person]

I'm slightly confused -- this is a diamond shaped border, and the other symbols (a Cross, or Star, or Crescent, or FSM) go inside of it? Why? How come it doesn't just replace all the other symbols?!!

I would agree.

 

[a_unique_person]

And I agree with them getting rid of all religious symbols, Darat. But I don't think anyone should be forced to operate under a religious symbol that's contrary to their ideologies, nor do I think that someone should be barred from operating under their own religious symbol.

There are a lot more religions in the world than just Xian, Jewish and Islam. That is the issue.

 

[Skeptic]

Cynic that I am, I had just assumed that painting a Star of David on an Israeli ambulance would be the equivalent of painting a big ole target on it.

(sigh)

What is truly annoying is that many people who say just this (not you) also claim israel is the "agressor" in the Middle East as opposed to the "peaceful" Arabs. Ah well.

In the English Spectator, a commentator recently said that when he wrote a piece critical of Islam's propensity to violence, he was told two things by his friends: first, he shouldn't have written it, since Islam is a religion of peace; and, second, he would now get death threats.

 

[Skeptic]

Last night the "Majority Report" on Air America was playing clips of O'Reilly claiming the cross is an internationally recognized symbol that transcends religious connotations (as evidenced by the Red Cross and tombstones).

Yeah, just look at Muslim and jewish cemetaries: crosses as far as the eye can see.

I said it before and I'll probably say it again: O'Reilly is a grade-A idiot.

 

[gtc]

This is a step in the right direction.

However, I wonder if they are going to insist that the red cross and the red crescent sit inside the diamond too.

Otherwise it still looks like the Israelis are being treated as second class citizens.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Otherwise it still looks like the Israelis are being treated as second class citizens.

If you want to describe the treatment of Israelis in such a way then you also have to describe Indians, Japanese and Chinese and many more countries as also being treated as second class citizens since they all have to adopt either the cross or the crescent rather then a specific symbol representing their majority religion.

I am also still unsure as to what the argument is that is being put forward as to why the IRC should adopt another symbol. All I see is a "political correctness" argument.

 

[a_unique_person]

This is a step in the right direction.

However, I wonder if they are going to insist that the red cross and the red crescent sit inside the diamond too.

Otherwise it still looks like the Israelis are being treated as second class citizens.

And the Hindu's, Shintos, Confusciasts, etc?

 

[zenith-nadir]

Point of information, please. How did the (or "a") cross come to be on the Swiss flag? Because the original Red Cross was apparently based on the Swiss flag and was supposed to denote their neutrality, not a religion.

Here ya go.

THE SWISS FLAG

...The flag looks back upon 700 years of history...By the early Middle Ages the cross was commonly used on coins and seals and, as a symbol of the Christian faith, it was carried into battle on the banners of the various warring parties....Documents and records show that the white cross, which appeared on the banner of Schwyz (one of the first Cantons which gave its name to Switzerland) in the year 1240, had been bestowed upon the Canton by the Emperor Frederick II as a token of its freedom....As the national flag, the white cross first appeared on a red background on the Confederation's seal in 1814. It has been officially in use since 1848, when Switzerland was transformed from a loose federation of different Cantons into the present Confederation with a central government.....The use of the red cross on a white background, which is actually the Swiss flag reversed, was granted to the International Red Cross to commemorate the organization founded by Henri Dunant, citizen of Geneva.

 

[Darat]

Here ya go.

Thanks for that, so the original symbol had no religious meaning to the organisation but obviously did to others.