| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
It doesn't matter that a country is willing and able to lend its human and technical resources to a movement dedicated to aiding people in crisis situations. It's better that lives go unsaved, lest someone be offended by the rescuers' identity.
In truth, it's not just about the choice of symbol. Any sign that would make Israel identifiable in acts of compassion could threaten to water down anti-"Zionist" fervor among a Muslim populace. Also, accepting an Israeli role in the Red Cross movement would put countries like Iran, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon, whom the article names as instrumental in blocking the process, on a slippery slope toward acknowledging Israel's existence as a sovereign state.
From the Jerusalem Post: "New Red Cross emblem hits snag"
An attempt to end Israel's long isolation from the Red Cross humanitarian movement hit a snag Tuesday as Muslim opponents used procedural moves to block progress at a decisive international conference, delegates said.
The International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, which opened Tuesday and is expected to conclude Wednesday, is being asked to approve changes to meet Israeli demands of almost six decades that it be granted full membership without using the cross or crescent to identify itself.
[...]
The conference is focusing on the addition of an optional, third emblem, a blank, red-bordered square standing on one corner, that could stand alone or frame the Red Shield of David of the Israeli rescue society Magen David Adom.
The vote has been expected to be a largely formal one, as last December the diplomatic conference of the signatories to the Geneva Convention approved Protocol III to the convention recognizing an additional symbol. Two-thirds of the delegates present must approve that decision when it comes to a vote on Thursday, MDA chairman Dr. Noam Yifrach said.
Yifrach said that it would be a historic end to a long struggle that has continued since 1949, when an attempt to admit MDA was rejected by one vote. Israeli ambulances and staffers will continue to bear the Red Star of David symbol with pride, he said. Only on international missions, when necessary, would it be enclosed or accompanied by a red rectangle standing on one end.
Yifrach praised the Foreign Ministry, the US and its American Red Cross for their continued efforts to get MDA official recognition. When admitted to the movement, MDA will be entitled to special funding, expand its humanitarian work abroad, cooperate with other members and improve its rescue services inside Israel, he added.
Posted by Marisol at June 21, 2006 6:05 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
I think this is good news, insofar as it will open a few more eyes (and didn't kill anybody).
Posted by: FreeSpeech![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 21, 2006 7:03 AM
The ICRC and RC can take their respective cross and crescent and shove out.
Ouch!
Israel should cease any cooperation with the organizations until the Magen David symbol is recognized just the same as everyone else's or until the ICRC bans its own symbol and that of the RC.
Unfortunately, my stupid little country has long ago ceased to show any signs of minimal self-respect and national honor.
Posted by: Shy Guy at June 21, 2006 7:09 AM
A good way of socking up on islam would be to remove the 'cresent' entirely. The jerks are worried about the cross, they can go stuff themselves. Let there be only the red cross.
Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 21, 2006 7:18 AM
Couldn't agree more arjun.
How did the IRC allow themselves to be polluted by this nonsenscial crescent anyway?
Posted by: Anthony at June 21, 2006 7:28 AM
Act like a dhimmi and you'll be treated like one.
Posted by: Kim Hartveld at June 21, 2006 8:28 AM
Anthony:
Historically, the IRC has been "moral equivalence" in action. It assisted Nazis taking flight from justice at the end of WW II, helping them to find refuge in South America, etc.. So, isn't it natural that they'd put politics before genuine humanitarian aid and allow Muslim pressure to dictate the terms under which a country with the most advanced techniques for dealing with all sorts of disasters and emergencies may contribute?
It must really and truly gall the ummah that tiny Israel, with its 5 million Jews, is an international leader in science and technology, while the only thing it has to offer the world is petroleum, an asset that is theirs by mere geophysical fluke.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at June 21, 2006 8:31 AM
I'm gonna go out, buy me the nicest Israeli flag and post it up by the front door, and then I will buy myself a magen david to hang around my neck and I will write the Presbyopian Church a letter that says, No longer a Presbyterian, Jew by Choice. And then, I will write that letter also to the Yellah Double-Cross and let them know I will be GIVING to the Magen David Adom, from now on INSTEAD.
Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at June 21, 2006 9:23 AM
"assisted Nazis taking flight from justice at the end of WW II, helping them to find refuge in South America"
The IRC is not a US organization.
Posted by: FreeSpeech at June 21, 2006 9:26 AM
Careful! The American Red Cross is NOT synonymous with the ICRC.
Posted by: Shy Guy at June 21, 2006 9:33 AM
The so-called Red Cross movement is a complex body. There is the Int'l Committee of the Red Cross which is a committee appointed by the Swiss govt, as it was when Swiss physicians were sent to care for German soldiers on the Eastern Front in WW2. Then there is the association of national Red Cross and Red crescent societies. Then a third body that I can't remember. By the way, the claim that they can't have a symbol [like the magen David] which belongs to only one country is hypocritical. This is because the Red Cross movement accepted the Red Lion and Sun emblem of Iran until Khomeini's gang switched it for something more Islamic.
Just bear in mind that the ICRC is a highly political body essentially directed by the Swiss govt. Among its blemishes is that it hired Swiss Nazi Francois Genoud after WW2 to do humanitarian work in Belgium. It also hired a certain Jacques Regnier [spelling?] to represent the ICRC in Israel before and during the Israeli War of Independence. He had this funny habit of exaggerating even Arab atrocity claims, as he did regarding Deir Yassin. BTW, the ICRC voted to keep secret info it had from the Swiss doctors on the Eastern front about the massacres of Jews. It also sent "inspection teams" to inspect some of the Nazi concentration camps. They came away reporting that everything was just fine. Let's not get into how Swiss banks and insurance cos. cheated Jews and their heirs after WW2.
Posted by: Eliyahu at June 21, 2006 9:51 AM
The American Red Cross also has its problems. In the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, many people sent letters to victims and survivors, usually sympathy cards with checks in them. The American Red Cross managed to get the bulk of those letters and cards from the post office, and they removed the checks from them. This is a despicable act in and of itself. In the aftermath of 9.11 its fund raising practices also came under scrutiny. While the two may be separate entities, I don't hear anything coming out of the American Red Cross to countermand what the IRC is saying, or anything that would tell me it is an independant agency. The American Red Cross needs to say something against this abominable racist act on the part of the IRC, and they need to say it loudly and publicly so the world can hear. I get tired of the ARC being left out of the loop of criticism time after time for the antics of its grandparent organization. TheIRC is a bunch of Jew-hating Eurodhimmies and they need to be reviled for it by the ARC. Not. Holding. My. Breath.
Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at June 21, 2006 9:57 AM
I say, muslims ....get over it. If you don't want their help when disaster strikes, GREAT. They can give assistance to humans in other places. You prefer death to life, and whining to taking care of your own selves anyway.
at June 21, 2006 10:43 AM
Eliyahu, your ideas on the red cross and swiss gov't are on par with islamists' theories on the splitting of the moon.
Posted by: FreeSpeech at June 21, 2006 10:49 AM
I don't hear anything coming out of the American Red Cross to countermand what the IRC is saying, or anything that would tell me it is an independant agency. The American Red Cross needs to say something against this abominable racist act on the part of the IRC, and they need to say it loudly and publicly so the world can hear.Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at June 21, 2006 09:57 AM
at June 21, 2006 10:52 AM
We all know that it's not the symbol that's unacceptable. They can't abide Jewish sovereignty in Israel.
Posted by: scaramouoche at June 21, 2006 11:02 AM
How about a BIG red Question Mark-
____________? _______________
Since the point is to save lives, not hinder help.
Or is the eroteme considered another "Crusader" invention?
Like questioning, itself?
(Which Islam always frowns upon.)
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_mark
Posted by: profitsbeard at June 21, 2006 11:08 AM
Red crescent ambulances have a long and sordid history of smuggling weapons and terrorists.
Posted by: poetcomic1 at June 21, 2006 12:13 PM
Israel should cease any cooperation with the organizations until the Magen David symbol is recognized just the same as everyone else's or until the ICRC bans its own symbol and that of the RC. Posted by: Shy GuyI agree with this. Apart from the concept of a Red Crescent being laughable (since humanitarian activities are alien to Islam), why should such an organization be associated with any single religion? Since we are discussing an international organization, rather than an European or US organization, why not either have a single secular symbol, or multiple religious symbols - cross, magen David, the Hindu Om (I guess a swastika would be too unacceptable, which is unfortunate from a Hindu standpoint), Khanda, and whatever Buddhism uses (is it the Asoka chakra?)
Eliyahu's refutation of the claim that the Magen David can't be accepted because of its association with only one country is correct, but not because of the example of Iran. Rather, it implies that if a religion has managed to spread to multiple countries, either peacefully (Buddhism), forcibly (Islam) or both (Christianity), its symbol would deserve recognition, but if it didn't manage to get popular beyond the country where it was born (Judaism, Hinduism, Shintoism), then it doesn't deserve international recognition. While one recognizes the importance of the plurality of such symbols, the preference of religions that have spread, regardless of their means, over the ones that haven't, is unfair.
After the fiasco that the Red Cross went through when they tried to misappropriate 9/11 funds for their other pet causes, I too lost my respect for it. Also, its association with the Red Crescent is something I abhor, particularly given that the latter has been used to transport Pali terrorists. These days, whenever I donate (and typically, it's in the form of clothes that my kid has outgrown before he got to wear them on more than a few occasions), I either donate them to Goodwill, or to the local Hindu temple, if the latter are willing to accept them (they aren't always).
at June 21, 2006 12:14 PM
"assisted Nazis taking flight from justice at the end of WW II, helping them to find refuge in South America"
The IRC is not a US organization.
Posted by: FreeSpeech at June 21, 2006 09:26 AM
And, FreeSpeech, your point is?
So far as I'm aware the US was not the only country sponsoring the Nuremburg trials and seeking to punish ranking members of Hitler's government.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at June 21, 2006 12:46 PM
Its not as if the RC would respond to a natural disaster in Israel, so why hide their bigotry?
Make an offer; let the Crescent handle muslim disasters and the Cross handles everyone else, along with the Israelis.
One disaster later and the Crescent would be BEGGING for Cross assistance, regardless of Israeli membership.
Posted by: Bacon-I Will Miss Thee at June 21, 2006 12:57 PM
You're right Bacon...beggars can't be choosers.
Posted by: freewoman at June 21, 2006 12:59 PM
freewoman,"You're right Bacon...beggars can't be choosers."
The muslim brainless beggars are the first to hold out their grimy hands for help from all non-muslims ( are we not using "infidels" any more? ) Many allah caused disasters have been taking place in their midst. What have their respective governments done to help their brothers and sisters in these cases?
"No" to their cresent in any color. Let the star shine brightly!
at June 21, 2006 3:55 PM
The Red Lion and Sun was adopted by the Pahlavi Dynasty in 1924 to set themselves apart from Turkey which at the time was the only place using the red crescent. The last shah refused to change to the crescent insisting that it was improper for an ancient civilization like Iran to limit itself to a strictly Muslim symbol. Despite the country's shift to the Red Crescent in 1980, Iran explicitly maintains the right to use the symbol. Therefore, it is still recognized by the Geneva Convention as a protection symbol with equal status to the Red Cross, Red Crescent and Red Crystal.
The Red Shield of David was initially proposed as an addition to the Red Cross, Red Crescent, and Red Lion in Sun in 1931, seventeen years before the State of Israel was established. The proposal was rejected back then but only for fear of symbol proliferation. Israel again tried to establish the emblem as a third protection symbol in the context of the Geneva Conventions, but a respective proposal was narrowly defeated when the conventions were amended in 1949.
The Red Cross symbol was never seen as specifically Christian and has not been objectional to many majority Hindu or Buddhist countries like Japan, Nepal or Thailand. Nor was it rejected by any officially athiest governments of any communist countries. Sri Lanka and India tried to establish a Red Swastika but failed and today use the Red Cross. Kazakhstan and Eritrea have attempted to use a unique combination of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent.
Finally, the introduction of an additional "neutral" symbol occured on December 7, 2005 with the adotion Red Crystal (also called the Red Lozenge or Red Diamond). Besides being bizarre and meaningless, the Red Crystal looks more like a Japanese corporate logo or a navy signal flag than that of a national rescue organization.
This means that the original reason of preventing symbol proliferation is a no longer valid objection, especially since the adoption of a Red Magen David would simultaneously retire the Red Crystal symbol now forced on Israel.
One action that could be taken would be for the American Red Cross to adopt the Red Magen David along with the Red Cross. If several already recognized members did this, then it would be impossible for the Muslim members to prevent Israel from doing the same.
Posted by: Provoslavni at June 21, 2006 4:30 PM
The Red Cross was never made up of saints. Army generals were its initial supporters because the Red Cross served important functions in European warfare. For example, Henri Dunant the visionary founder introduced the dog-tag. And I do not think that is bad as such. General Guillame Henri Dufour, co-founder of the Red-Cross, was the chief of staff of the Swiss army.
Consider that in the battle of Solferino before the Red Cross came into life, there had hardly been any surgeons, there was a lack of trained medical orderlies and supplies. And so 14 governments in 1863 convened in Geneva to launch what later became the Red Cross. From the start it was promoted and financed by the European military caste. Bismarck the iron chancellor took great interest in it. Marshall Foche saw in it an answer to the questions and fears of a modern time embossed in the emergence of national wars. The Red Cross is not a charitable organization per se but a tool for modern armies. Gustave Moynier’s motto for the Red Cross, Inter arma caritas is still valid today.
The interaction between the Red Cross and the high aristocracy of Europe sometimes had positive effects. Moynier, also one of the first founders and leaders of the Red Cross supported King Leopold II of Belgium’s colonial ambitions in Belgium. Leopold II later named him General Consul to Congo. In 1883 Moynier presented a paper for the Institut de Droit International which was distributed to all the European governments. The acceptance of this paper was decisive in the international recognition of the new Free State of Congo in the Congo Conference of Berlin in 1885, which essentially delivered this African country into the private property of King Leopold II.
Leopold based his colonial aspirations on the Committee established in 1876 for the “Propagation of civilization under the nations of the Congo region by means of scientific research, legal trade and the battle against Arab slave traders”. Subsequently he founded the Conference of Brussels for the fight against the slave trade. Admittedly, that King Leopold’s reign may not have been the most enlightened is a different matter. Moynier however, was in truth a fighter for the abolishment of the slave trade.
But the symbiosis of the Red Cross with Europe’s aristocratic elite, and with the military class of the late 19th century armies right from the beginning of the foundation has not been that beneficial. It undoubtedly contributed to this organization’s anti-Semitic stance during the Second World War, which continued with the establishment of Israel. If you take into account the various patronages of European royalty for Red Cross campaigns and the functions the children of crowned heads in Europe still fulfil in its supervisory boards, well it becomes clear why they cannot accept the Star of David, and why Red Cross ambulances are used for carrying armed Arab combatants. The fact that the Red Cross has figured four times in the award of the Nobel Peace Prize (1901,1917, 1944, 1963) is a giveaway, if you consider who else has received this prize…
Posted by: Hugo Schmidt-Fischer at June 21, 2006 5:19 PM
Brrr....being "rescued" by the Red Crescent is the last thing i would wish for myself. Time to buy cyanide and carry it with myself....
Posted by: Polish infideless at June 21, 2006 5:40 PM
If everything in the Islamoglobe is Inshalla, why do they need or even want rescuing?
Posted by: perpster at June 21, 2006 5:44 PM
ICRC was a disgrace in WWII! A report on the visit of an IRC delegate to Auschwitz in September, 1944 pointed out that internees were permitted to receive packages and that rumors of gas chambers could not be verified!!!! In 1944 when the Final Solution was almost "completed"!!!
After the numerous reports by Jan Karski about the extermination of Polish Jewry? Lies, lies and once more disgusting lies!
at June 21, 2006 5:52 PM
The American Red Cross also has its problems.
No surprise here - and they are very long standing. I have not given the first red cent to the Red Cross since I was a young Army wife in Germany at the heighth of the Cold War. I had "charge" of my husband's entire platoon-full of very young wives just in case of "emergency" - my "job" to get the whole lot of them to the coast and over to England should the Russians come rolling through the Fulda Gap. Meanwhile, the guys spent about 4 months a year away training.
So, while they were gone one time I dropped into post to pick up the mail and ran into the Red Cross Officer, who proceeded to whine and wail at me about one of "my girls" who had just been there begging him to get her hubbie out of the field and loan her money to go home for her parent's funeral - both had been killed in a car accident. He had the gall to tell that 16 year old "wife" that going to the funeral was useless - they were dead after all. And how was her PFC hubby to pay back the RedX? (They made about $89 a month back then.) The SOB wouldn't even put an emergency call through to her husband for her.
Thank goodness for brigade Top Sergeants. He and I had the kid and her hubby on a plane out of Frankfurt in just under 3 hours, with plenty of $$ they didn't have to pay back to anyone.
And never once since that day have I ever had anything whatever to do with our friendly "RedX."
Besides, the bimbo who was running the thing at the time of 911 made $450,000 a year - more than the President of the US. And this is a "charity." Right.
Posted by: gallopinggranny at June 21, 2006 8:23 PM
BBC: Israel allowed to join Red Cross
The measure was passed in a late-night vote despite objections by Muslim countries to the Israeli Magen David Adom society becoming a member.Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop
at June 21, 2006 8:58 PM
"Brrr....being "rescued" by the Red Crescent is the last thing i would wish for myself. Time to buy cyanide and carry it with myself...."
LOL
Actually has the red crescent ever helped or assisted any non muslims anywhere?
I always hear of the red cross going all over to help where ever needed, but never the red crescent?
Has any1 even heard of muslim charitys ever giving assistance to non muslims? coz i havent.
Posted by: Berf at June 21, 2006 10:08 PM
Berf:
Has any1 even heard of muslim charitys ever giving assistance to non muslims? coz i havent.
at June 21, 2006 11:23 PM
Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir says:
"They are all Jewish organizations."
Posted by: ummahnewslinks at June 21, 2006 11:27 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200512,00.html
Red Cross Admits Israel, Palestinians
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
GENEVA — The Red Cross admitted Israel to the worldwide humanitarian organization early Thursday, ending decades of exclusion linked to the Jewish state's refusal to accept the traditional cross symbol.
The approval came in the early hours Thursday following a two-day International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent.
With a round of applause the Red Cross federation admitted Israel's Magen David Adom society simultaneously with the Palestine Red Crescent. An optional new emblem was adopted so that Israel could retain its red star of David instead of having to adopt the red cross or crescent used by the 184 other societies in the global movement.
"This has been going on for 58 long years. It's time. It's overdue," said Bonnie McElveen Hunter, chairman of the American Red Cross, which had been campaigning for years for the Israeli society's admission.
Israeli Ambassador Itzhak Levanon said the International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent had earlier rejected a Muslim amendment that would have challenged Israel's occupation of Arab territory since the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. The vote was 72 votes for the amendment and 191 against, he said.
Then the conference passed by a 237-54 vote a resolution setting up the legal basis for Israelis' admission and making an exception to the rule that societies have to be under a sovereign state so that the Palestinians could join as well.
Magen David Adom has sought membership in the Red Cross movement since the 1930s — even before Israel became a state — but has been barred from entry because it objects to using the traditional symbols of the movement to identify its medical and humanitarian workers.
BETTER READ THE WHOLE THING
at June 22, 2006 1:54 AM
I can't believe the arrogance and stupidity coming from islamic groups and Muslims in general, I now see a pattern where Muslims want poverty and division among peoples.
The theme of the issue was to be assisting other humans in need, but Muslims have made this a Justice and historical debate about who gets to help the suffering.
Why are they hell-bent on making every issue about THEM , or using Sharia-Law to not help the Tsunami victims because it was Allah wrath on them as bad Muslims .
Right now Canada has only about a 1% population of Muslims and the denial and paranoia by them to use Racism and Islamophobia as a weapon to silence the 99% is wearing thin and I can see a tangible disdain from this "Victim" mind set even though 17 Muslims were arrested or terror related charges.
The public is asking why Muslims assume the Mosque vandalism is Islamophobia and the media reports it as so while actual evidence led to the arrest of the Muslims wanting to do Jihad is clarified as "Alleged" and Innocent until proven guilty.
Muslim charities are ordered by the Quran to help other Muslims first, but most other Religious based charities don't ask the faith of the person they help, the tsunami aid was a classic example of non-Muslims not being welcomed to help orphans and homeless victims.
Instead we now see proof of aid-money building madrassa's as quasi-orphanSchools if you want the help , I just don't trust Muslims in general anymore and it's their fault for not presenting me with a reason to trust them.
Posted by: ala-sux
at June 22, 2006 3:24 AM
Have they even given aid to Muslims? I mean, do they actually do anything? I'm sure there's a passage in the Quran that forbids humanitarian aid.
Supercop,
Yes, they do donate. Once a year, on the occasion of bakr-e-eid, they saw off the heads of all animals they come across, and give 5% to the muslim poor. The animals, for the most part, in infidel countries especially, are stolen. Yes, they do give aid.
at June 22, 2006 4:08 AM
Bacon-I will miss thee:
My memory is a little foggy about the hew-and-cry that went up following the tsunami of Dec. 2004, which other than Thailand and Sri Lanka, primarily affected Muslim nations. It seems to me that offers of aid from Israel were initially spurned, but once they figured out how to take delivery without acknowledging the source, the SOBs were too happy to take the help. Meanwhile, rich nations like Saudi Arabia, so generous when it comes to finding money for suicide bombers' families... ...er, I mean the widows and orphans of "martyrs", had to be shamed into upping the ante by way of comparing their offer to that of western Infidel nations.
Polish Infideless:
Thanks for reminding me of the callow way the Red Cross conducted itself during WW II as well as after.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at June 22, 2006 8:38 AM
These mohammedans react the same way to a cross as all those undead baddies in horror movies.
"Arrgghh! It hurts my eyes! It burns!"
Lol
At least they have the sense to recognise the symbol of their ultimate total defeat.
Posted by: Mike_W at June 23, 2006 5:56 AM
...frankly I am disgusted Israel accepted inclusion on these terms
why should Israel bother with killers and nazis
and I have to register every day on your web site if I want to post
it really is a annoying
Posted by: charleston at June 23, 2006 6:28 PM
test
Posted by: charleston at June 23, 2006 6:29 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)