Monday, December 5, 2005
Here's more on MDA and the new symbol. Yes, there are benefits to the acceptance, and yes, there were other groups wanting in, and yes, the MDA will still use the star, albeit within the red diamond:
JPost: Red Cross to adopt new neutral symbol
MDA chairman Dr. Noam Yifrach said Monday that he hopes the international organization approves the new symbol, because no organization can become a member without an official symbol. MDA, he said, has already carried out a long series of organization changes including a change in its constitution, in order to meet its requirements.
Yifrach added that with its expected membership in the international organization, MDA will receive various grants and allocations that will make possible the improvement of its rescue services in Israel. Thus Israeli residents will gain from the long-awaited step...
...In 2000, a compromise was reached in which the International Red Cross agreed to adopt a third, neutral red symbol shaped liked a diamond but called a crystal. Any national society - not only Israel but also Eritrea and Kazakhstan - could accept it and become members with full rights...
Yes, the world is still full of bigotted, pin-headed crap. Yes, this may still be an example of it, but I have a hard time ranting about it at this point. We'll just remember how long it took even to get to this compromise point and what it says about the so-called "international community."
And yes, they posponed it again... for Wednesday.
Syria wanted their Red Crescent to be able to act in Golan (and Israel agreed on parts of it?!), and Iran said to Slovenians that it will vote aginst red cristal so that Israel can't get in.
To be honest, I had hard time accepting red cristal, but this is beyond description.
What is next?
"Surrender! Expose your throats to our knives! Surrender!"
What a farce! The Star of David should not be negotiable. This isn't about helping people, it's about keeping the Jews in their place.
When will you learn, O' Israel, that you cannot bargain with Evil?
Sheesh!
I've been hogging some of the comments here lately (it's not my fault though, it's yours for having a consistently thoughtful and timely blog), but I'm going to take the liberty of reproducing a comment at Volokh Conspiracy on this same subject, responding to the anti-Semitic quality reflected in this decision:
Anti-Semitic? Of course it's anti-Semitic, it's also about other factors including EU styled power politics (both within EU nations and the fact the Intl. Red Cross is headquartered in Europe); raw numbers (presently 13 million Jews in the world, compare that to 15 million in 1933; and then also compare it to Eurabian financial/political interests as well as the number of Arab/Muslims in the region). Raw numbers combined with both active and passive (i.e., apathy) forms of anti-Semitism all sum up to two things: Israel given short shrift and a failure in the West to stand up for a fundamental principle. Prior to Oslo, certainly Oslo itself as well as since that time (e.g., Clinton's Camp David attempt) Israel has been subjected to the effects of pronounced apathy and blunt force power politics.
Too, given the Eurabian influence (however variously one might think of Bat Ye'or's thesis), does the corresponding theme of dhimmitude resonate here? If Israel is required to suppress, to consciously suppress, such an elemental aspect of her identity, then indeed, what does this say about the so-called "international community." What it says is many things.
None of them good.
Thanks Michael, and don't worry about "hogging comments," -- nothing's more lonely looking than a blog without any. Constructive input is always welcome.
I don't want it to seem that this issue doesn't piss me off, it does. But there's a major tendency, especially in the blogosphere to complain about things long after there's no use to it anymore which I try to avoid. I also don't want to be "more Israeli than the Israelis." They made the deal, so to me it's just on to the next stage...it's an opportunity to answer the inevitable questions" 'What's up with this Red Crystal thing? What's that all about?' Answer: Because the Muslims were too bigotted and the Europeans too appeasing for the Jews to use a Star of David. Shameful.
Yes, I fully understand. It nonetheless is something which is rightly thought of as deeply shameful. This requirement of erasure or at least suppression of identity, in order to gain "acceptance" (and it can be reasonably debated as to what degree Israel has now been "accepted" within this org) is disturbing indeed for what it reflects within the IRC and the institutional international community as a whole, as you indicated. The requirement of conscious dis-identity or self-effacement, in order to gain admittance, is not a good sign. It's something which reaches deep, it's more than a "mere" single instance of malignancy, such as is reflected in this recent photo in a German soccer crowd. This requirement of conscious denial of identity reaches far more deeply.
h/t I am a Doughnut.
"The requirement of conscious dis-identity or self-effacement, in order to gain admittance, is not a good sign."
This is a good thing to keep in mind.
A concluding note here, as the following confusion has been promulgated both ubiquitously and prominently, by the IRC and other outlets, in order to aid the offensive against MDA's use of the Star of David within the IRC. Specifically, the notion - more accurately the deception - that if the IRC had allowed MDA to use the Red Star of David (in battlefield situations or in a manner equivalent to how the cross and crescent are used in international relief situations) then the IRC would need to allow other countries use of the swastika.
This originated with a 1999 speech by Dr. Bernadine Healy, then head of the ARC, and an immediate, follow-up conversation with Cornelio Sommaruga, then president of the IRC: "Eyes bulging and furious, Sommaruga said to her, 'If we're going to have the Shield of David, why would we not have to accept the swastika?'" From that point forward, as detailed in Krauthammer's linked report, it continues to deteriorate even further. I noted this in an extensive exchange at Volokh, but going to Krauthammer's link above is sufficient to understand Sommaruga's equivocation and attempted (and largely successful) coverup specifically.