Red Cross Assails Israel Over West Bank Barrier

[La_Serpiente]

Red Cross Assails Israel Over West Bank Barrier

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - The International Red Cross assailed Israel's West Bank barrier Wednesday as a violation of humanitarian law for slashing through land envisaged for a Palestinian state under a U.S.-backed peace plan.

Three U.S. envoys arrived in Israel to discuss Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites)'s plans to evacuate settlers from Gaza, also occupied by Israel, while the Palestinians proposed international peacekeepers move in when the Israelis move out.

Sharon says his unilateral strategy aims to defuse conflict with a U.S.-backed "road map" peace plan in tatters from persistent violence. Israel has kept building the barrier taking in land Palestinians want for a state, raising U.S. concerns.

more...

Red Cross Assails Israel Over West Bank Barrier

[dudeness]

1. the red cross aint nuthin but shit..

:)

[La_Serpiente]

2. may I ask why?

?

[Muddleoftheroad]

3. The Red Cross

Won't even accept the Magen David symbol for the Israeli branch. Even though it accepts the Red Crescent. That prevents Magen David Adom from full membership in the organization.

The Red Cross is an openly anti-Israel organization and as such has not one iota of credibility (or contributions from me).

[drewb]

4. This place is getting weird...

Now we are bashing the Red Cross?

:crazy:

:loveya:

[Muddleoftheroad]

5. They deserve it

Have you read up on their failure to accept the use of the Magen David (Star of David)? They accept the Red Crescent, but remain either anti-Israel or anti-Semitic. Take your pick.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. No, they remain an INTERNATIONAL organisation...

They're neither anti-Israel nor anti-Semitic. If they allow one NATIONAL group to use its own symbol, then what's to stop every other member from doing the same?

Of course I'm left wondering why anyone could claim that the Red Cross is either anti-Israel or anti-Semitic when it's been working closely with MDA...

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList86/B29CF934AE50915CC1256D72004F36D6

Violet...

[Blayde Starrfyre]

9. Good point

I think that's a good point. If they make an exception here, why can't the United States switch to the "Red Stars and Stripes?" Or France to the "Tricolore Rouge?" Or England to the "Red St. George's Cross" . . . oh right. Why don't Buddhist countries get the "Red Wheel?"

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. Muslim nations get the Red Crescent

But the Red Cross isn't prejudiced or anything...

[DUmbrella]

10. It's not nations, its religions

The cross represents Christianity. I assume that the organization was probably started as some sort of Christian-related group. In Muslim countries they use the crescent which is the symbol of Islam. I don't see why Israel can't use the star, which is the symbol of Judaism. This way, all of the 3 major Judeo religions are represented and happy. In addition, if a Buddhist country wants to make it a red Buddha I don't see what's wrong with that.

I'm not saying that the red cross is anti-semitic, I just would like a good explanation as to why Muslim countries are allowed to use the crescent but not the other way around?

[Jack Rabbit]

14. I have to disagree, Violet

It might be better and easier for the Red Cross to give in on this point and allow itself to be represented by a Red Star of David in Israel. After all, the Star of David was a religious symbol before the time of Christ, long before it was a symbol of a state whose modern existence dates from 1948.

Also, it is not unusual for a religious symbol to become a national symbol. A cross appears on the flags on many European nations (Britain's flag actually features three of them and that emblem appears in the upper left quarter of the flag of Australia); a crescent graces the flag of several states with a predominantly Islamic population. Why should a Star of David be an exception? I can't think of a good reason.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. The Red Cross and religious symbols...

Neither of the current two symbols used by the Red Cross have a religious significance. That's why some of the comments in this thread asking why Islam has a symbol and Judaism doesn't come across as a bit weird to me. The symbol of the Red Cross doesn't hold any religious significance for me because I've always understood it to be a reverse Swiss flag sort of thing and it denotes neutrality....

I think the claims of anti-Semitism being fired at the Red Cross are absolutely ludicrous. I went and did some reading on the symbols of the Red Cross and for a start Israel isn't the only country that doesn't feel comfortable using either of the two existing symbols. And I found out it's not as simple a thing as the Red Cross just deciding to adopt additional symbols. It involves changing international law and having additional symbols written into the Geneva Conventions. And something else I didn't know was that the Red Cross hasn't been sitting on it's hands and doing nothing about the situation with would-be full members who aren't comfortable with the current emblems. It's come up with a third emblem which should satisfy all who are uncomfortable using the other two emblems....

On the problem with the existing emblems:

"The emblems worked well for a long time, but in recent decades two problems have arisen. Firstly, in some conflicts the cross or the crescent have been interpreted as having a religious significance. They do not, but this fact has occasionally compromised the neutral nature of the emblems, putting lives at risk.

Secondly, some countries and their National Societies have not felt comfortable using either the red cross or red crescent. This is the case for the Israeli society which uses a red star of David, and the Society of Eritrea which uses both a red crescent and a red cross."

http://www.ifrc.org/who/emblem.asp

And here's another page from the Red Cross on the issues involving emblems...

http://www.redcross.int/en/emblem/qanda7.asp

After reading those links, it'd be ridiculous for anyone to fire off unsubstantiated claims of anti-Semitism against the Red Cross, imho...

Violet...

[DUmbrella]

18. Here's an idea!

Why can't ALL the "chapters" of the organization have a logo that includes ALL of the symbols?? This is fair to everyone and promotes unity, etc etc. I have a feeling that most people would fine with that..except for a certain group..ahem..ahem... who wouldn't want the "cursed" star of david in their sights.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. An even better idea...

An emblem that isn't offensive to anyone? I think that's something the Red Cross has come up with. btw, why would Israel not have a problem with using any symbol but the one currently used by MDA when that's the crux of the current problem? MDA wants its own symbol and is uncomfortable with the others...

I've got an even better idea. Let's just whack the fucking golden arches of McDonalds up as the new and only emblem and put an end to the infernal whining and bickering ;)


Violet...

[Jack Rabbit]

19. I still believe the best thing to do is to accept the Red Star of David

What possible harm can that do? Would an ambulance bearing a Red Star of David be less identifiable than a Red Crescent or a Red Cross? The idea is to identify those providing medical aid in combat zones and protected structures, vehicles and persons associated with the providing of medical and emergency aid elsewhere.

The argument that a Star of David is a national symbol is spurious. The red cross itself is a national symbol; it adorns the flag of Switzerland, the home country of the ICRC. The argument that the Star of David should not be used because it is a religious symbol is equally spurious. The Red Crescent and the Red Lion were adopted in Islamic countries simply because they were alternatives to a symbol of Christianity. Why should the same courtesy not be afforded to a Jewish symbol as an alternative to the Islamic and Christian symbols?

Now, this could be one of those arguments where anti-Semitic gets obfuscated with anti-Zionist. However, that should make no difference. The purpose is to save lives and provide emergency aid to those who need it; the symbol used is of little importance. If the opposition to acceptance of the emblem of the Mogen David Adom is not motivated by racism or international politics, then the best that can be said about Arab states and health ministries fighting tooth and nail against the inclusion of the recognition of the Red Star of David as a symbol of international aid is that it is simply petty.

The Mogen David Adom is a member of the ICRC and its symbol should be recognized. Let them go about the business of saving lives. That is what the ICRC is supposed to do, not get embroiled in international politics.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. What other members would use the red star of David?

Claiming that the Red Cross is a national symbol is what I believe is a spurious argument, because clearly it's an international symbol that had it's roots in Switzerland.

The argument that the Star of David should not be used because it is a religious symbol is equally spurious.

So arguing that the Red Cross shouldn't be used because it's a religious symbol (which it isn't anymore than the red star of David would be) is an equally spurious argument, in which case the question has to be asked about why anyone would feel uncomfortable with the current symbols...

Why should the same courtesy not be afforded to a Jewish symbol as an alternative to the Islamic and Christian symbols?

Because the symbols used by the Red Cross aren't religious symbols. Please read the links I provided from the Red Cross that stated as much...

Now, this could be one of those arguments where anti-Semitic gets obfuscated with anti-Zionist.

No, it's neither anti-semitic or anti-zionist. It's a matter of changing international law, something that doesn't sound particularly easy to do when there's more than one would-be member of the Red Cross involved. The Red Cross has to cater to them as well, or is Israel the only would-be member that matters? I find the anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist argument to be an incredibly lazy one thrown around by folk who haven't bothered to do a bit of reading and find out the facts...

The Mogen David Adom is a member of the ICRC and its symbol should be recognized. Let them go about the business of saving lives.

Could you point out where the issue of emblems has actually hampered any member of the ICRC from saving lives? And could you also point out where the Red Cross has said that MDA's symbol shouldn't be recognised? I can't find that bit in anything I've read. My opinion is that if Israel wants to use its own emblem, then every other member should be able to do the same. Apart from that I really don't care one way or the other what symbols are recognised. What I care about is people flinging round wild accusations of anti-Semitism at the Red Cross just because they've been programmed to do so. The most important thing is that whatever emblems do get accepted, that they're included in the Geneva Convention...

Violet...

p.s. I hadn't read this post before I replied to some earlier ones, but are you claiming the Red Cross is anti-Semitic even after reading the links I provided??

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. Thanks for that

I agree completely.

It is appalling that an aid organization that is supposed to be humanitarian hides behind such bigotry. The Red Cross uses two religious symbols already. It is only anti-Semitism that keeps them from adding the Star of David.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Slight rethink...

I replied to this before I read Mr Rabbit's most recent post. As he does appear to be accusing the Red Cross of anti-Semitism, my original post and the praise contained in it was misplaced...

Violet...

[sushi]

24. Maybe because

the Red Crescent represents over a billion people, and the Star of David represents only about 5 million. I just think this quarrel over emblems is ridiculous.

[drdon326]

6. I know what you mean...

next thing you know , someone will be bashing

arafat.

:crazy:

[Jim Sagle]

11. Like that would ever happen on a progressive forum.

[sushi]

23. I disagree

The Red Cross does good work.

[LeahMira]

25. Don't know that I'd go that far, dudeness...

... but the Red Cross has some issues with Israel that are difficult to understand or explain.

Israel has been refused full membership in the International Red Cross. In addition, Israel is not allowed to use the Star of David as its symbol although other nations are allowed to use the Cross or the Crescent as their symbol. 176 other nations have been accepted to full membership in the ICRC. Some of these nations have a record of questionable behavior viv a vis other nations or groups of people within their borders. However, only Israel has been refused membership... until it improves its relations with the Palestinian Authority.

Why do you suppose that special conditions are placed on Israel's acceptance as an ICRC member? Why are those or similar conditions not imposed upon other nations?

(When I heard about this last week, I was sceptical myself. I asked whether any nation had applied for membership with the ICRC and been turned down, and if so, why. The answer I received was that no nation has been turned down that has applied. Frankly, I'm amazed that Israel, with its world-wide reputation for cutting edge medical research, would be refused membership in the ICRC. A state with so much to offer... it boggles the mind!)

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. Just in case anybody doubts this

Here is an ARAB article about the controversy and how both the Arabs and the International Red Cross oppose Israel's use of the Magen David.

Arabs urge Geneva meet to reject Israeli request
Abu Dhabi |By Barbara Bibbo' | 27-05-2003
Print friendly format | Email to Friend

Arab Ministers of Health are urging the World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva to oppose Israeli requests to have the Star of David recognised among the international first aid symbols.

The Geneva Convention currently recognises only two symbols: the Red Cross and the Red Crescent, but Israel never accepted these two symbols on religious grounds. It has been struggling since 1949 to have the red star accepted.

Israeli first-aid organisation, Magen David Adom (MDA), is a member of the International Red Cross, but its insistence on retaining its emblem has limited the MDA status in the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies to an observer.

Arab ministers gathered in Geneva for the 56th assembly of the WHO decided to raise consensus among other friendly countries to oppose Israel's attempts. "The Arab ministers have decided to ask the WHO to set a new protocol for the accreditation of the emergency and rescue symbols," said a report issued by the UAE Ministry of Health.

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=88775

[dArKeR]

13. ICRC blasts West Bank wall as rights violation

An aerial view shows part of Israel's controversial security barrier which separates the Israeli-Arab village Baqaa al-Gharbiya and the Palestinian village of Nazlat Issa in the West Bank on Wednesday. The US and European countries will not speak during hearings next week at the International Court of Justice on the legality of Israel's West Bank barrier, the court said. Israel announced last week that it was boycotting the hearings at the ICJ, the UN's highest judiciary body, whose seat is in the Hague.
PHOTO: AFP

(I like the pic in the report cause I never actually saw a semi-aerial view before)

The International Red Cross assailed Israel's West Bank barrier on Wednesday as a violation of humanitarian law for slashing through land envisaged for a Palestinian state under a US-backed peace plan.

Three US envoys met aides to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on his plan to evacuate settlers from the Gaza Strip, also occupied by Israel. The Palestinians proposed international peacekeepers move into Gaza once the Israelis move out.

Sharon says his unilateral strategy aims to defuse conflict with a US-backed peace plan in tatters from persistent violence. But Israel has also kept building the barrier taking in land Palestinians want for a state, raising US concern.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/02/20/2003099448

[Comadreja]

15. PLO and Sinn Fein

"In the early 1990s I wrote a series of articles arguing that the only way out of the bloody impasse in the north of Ireland was for the British government to start talking to Sinn Fein. What seemed to me a sensible, not to say obvious, course was angrily denounced in some quarters: it would reward the "men of violence", it would be immoral given their unspeakable history, it wouldn't provide a solution."

www.guardian.co.uk read more (7789 characters)