MISTAKING SPIT FOR RAIN

 

 

Red Cross, Crescent And Star

                                                                                                              

Hartford Courant, Editorial, December 19, 2005

 

Logic tells us there should not be a dispute over what emblem to use for the World's oldest and foremost relief agency. The International Red Cross is what it has always been, a humanitarian organization that for more than a century has crossed national boundaries to help people in distress.

 

But decades ago, Muslims insisted that the Red Crescent be accepted in countries that chose to use it. Red Cross members eventually agreed.

 

If the Red Crescent is acceptable to the Red Cross, why not the Star of David? Israelis have asked the question since 1948. They have been refused membership because they prefer using the Star for their Magen David Adom relief operations in Israel.

 

But miracles are possible. Earlier this month, Red Cross members made a grand, although belated, compromise. They approved a proposal to change their symbol. Relief workers and vehicles would have a new emblem, a diamond-shaped red "crystal" on a white background.

 

Affiliates that also wish to use the Red Cross under the red diamond/crystal may do so. The same goes for affiliates that prefer the Red Crescent or Star of David.

 

What took so long? Nationalist politics and religion, of course. Symbols matter, but up to a point. They should matter far less than helping people in distress anywhere in the world.

 

We were tempted to call the agreement Solomonic. No such fortune. After the congratulations, Syria's representatives at the Red Cross raised an objection. They claimed that admitting Israel as a member of the international organization should wait until the Israelis admit Syrian Red Crescent relief workers to the Golan Heights, which has been occupied since 1967.

 

The birth of the diamond/crystal requires the approval of every Red Cross member. Do Syrians want to be remembered as the lone holdout? Aren't there other, far more meaningful problems that Damascus should be working on? Of course.

 

Copyright 2005, Hartford Courant

 

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-cross.artdec19,0,5255993.story?coll=hc-headlines-editorials

 

 

 

 

 

From: Mark Rosenblit

To: letters@courant.com

Cc: readerep@courant.com

Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 13:56 PM

Subject: Mistaking Spit For Rain

                                                                                                         

MISTAKING SPIT FOR RAIN

 

Rarely have I seen a more error-ridden Editorial than "Red Cross, Crescent And Star" (December 19, 2005), concerning the recent adoption of the neutral Red Crystal emblem by the International Committee of the Red Cross. 

 

Firstly, the ICRC's more than half-century refusal to recognize the Red Star of David, in addition to the Red Crescent and the Red Cross, as a permissible insignia for member societies of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies has had little to do with the propriety of recognizing yet another insignia and everything to do with finding an acceptable pretext for barring the Jewish State's national medical relief agency, Magen David Adom, from membership in that international humanitarian organization.  After all, the ICRC had no problem accepting, as additional permissible insignias, either (pre-1980) Iran's Red Lion And Sun or Nazi Germany's eagle clutching a cross in its talons.  Moreover, during a November 1999 meeting of the International Federation in Geneva, Switzerland, Cornelio Sommaruga, President of the ICRC, demonstrated his organization’s true attitude towards the Jewish State by candidly declaring to Bernadine Healy, President of the American Red Cross:  “If we are going to have the Shield of David, why would we not have to accept the Swastika?”

 

Secondly, the ICRC did not agree -- in a grand ecumenical effort to create a single inclusive symbol -- to change its insignia to the neutral Red Crystal, below which individual member societies of the International Federation would be allowed to place a Red Cross, a Red Crescent or a Red Star of David.  Rather, the ICRC merely added the Red Crystal as a third permissible insignia.  This means that, unlike every other national medical relief agency in the World, MDA will be forced to replace its impermissible national insignia with the Red Crystal on all international missions.  However, if given prior permission by a host country, MDA would be allowed to insert a small Red of Star of David within the Red Crystal emblem during such a mission.

 

Moreover, altruism played no part in the ICRC’s decision to approve the Red Crystal, as that organization thereby sought to achieve two objectives, one injurious to Israel and the other beneficial to itself, namely, (1) Force Israel to recognize the Palestinian Red Crescent Society as the national medical relief agency of “Palestine”, a nation that does not presently exist; and (2) Convince the American Red Cross to release to the ICRC over 50 million dollars in withheld dues.  The ICRC’s first objective has already been achieved.  In order to obtain the prior consent of the Palestinian Authority to the adoption of the Red Crystal, without which consent the ICRC was unwilling to consider the additional insignia, MDA (and, through it, the State of Israel) officially recognized the Palestinian Red Crescent Society as the national medical relief agency of “Palestine”.

 

Furthermore, by incorrectly identifying Syria as the sole dissenter in the process, the Editorial unfairly impugned the anti-Israel credentials of the 38 other nations which also refused to vote in favor of adopting the Red Crystal (i.e., 29 nations, including Syria, voted against adoption, and 10 nations abstained). 

 

Thirdly, the adoption of the Red Crystal by the ICRC as an additional permissible insignia did not constitute MDA as a member society of the International Federation.  That will require a separate vote and, no doubt, more humiliating concessions. 

 

Yes, as the Editorial opined, "miracles are possible", but I prefer not to mistake spit for rain.

 

 

Regards

Mark Rosenblit

14 Coolidge Road

West Hartford, CT  06117

 

 

[Note:  In June 2006, both Israel’s Magen David Adom and the Palestinian Authority’s Palestinian Red Crescent Society were both admitted as member societies of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.  However, should anyone thereby conclude that a historic injustice against Israel has finally been redressed, it is pointed out that the I.C.R.C., which is officially dedicated to eschewing all partisan activities in favor of providing international humanitarian relief in all situations of conflict, has nevertheless continued to ally itself with those nations and entities which seek to undermine international recognition of the Jewish State as well as the latter’s legal claims to Judea, Samaria and Gaza.  For, although Israel’s national medical relief agency is now a member of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, its price of admission thereto included both having to capitulate on the international use of its official emblem and having to agree that the medical relief agency of the non-sovereign Palestinian Authority is to be accorded international recognition equal to that of the national medical relief agency of sovereign Israel.  Accordingly, in an exercise of extreme partisanship, the I.C.R.C.’s official recognition of Israel’s national medical relief agency was conditioned, not only upon Israel’s international abandonment of its own sovereign emblem, but also upon Israel’s acceptance of a nonexistent “Palestine”. -- Mark Rosenblit]

 

 

Return to main page