May 01, 2002

THE MAGICALLY DELICIOUS RED CROSS

THE MAGICALLY DELICIOUS RED CROSS

(See earlier entry, below). Of course, the American Red Cross proposal of recognizing Israel's chosen symbol as a third international medical symbol (Cross, Crescent and Shield of David) still makes a heck of a lot more sense than the ICRC's original competing proposal (backed by Sommaruga), which suggested making all the national symbols a variation on a common international symbol of a Red Diamond (Western countries would have a cross in the equilateral diamond shape, Israel would have a Star of David within the diamond, etc.). I don't particularly want a comparable assortment of medical symbols to what one might find in a Frosted Lucky Charms box, either, but ambulances disguised as playing cards is an even less popular proposition.

(PS: In case you're wondering, having been laughed out of the room on their first try, the ICRC is now proposing that all nationalities put their national symbols within a pair of Red Chevrons instead.)

(PPS: By the way, if you want to read Sommaruga's objection to the Israeli/ARC petition in his own words, you can find it here.)

Posted by BruceR at 03:07 PM

THESE BLOGS HAVE WARPED MY

THESE BLOGS HAVE WARPED MY FRAGILE LITTLE MIND

I hate to admit it, but the first thing that went through my head when I saw the new Hubble images was, "Good. Now Den Beste will have some new cover art."

Posted by BruceR at 02:48 PM

WE NEED THE UN FOR

WE NEED THE UN FOR THIS?

Israel says 52 Palestinians, including seven civilians, died in Jenin. The Palestinians say it was 56. I for one can live with that level of uncertainty. Go home, Kofi.

Posted by BruceR at 02:22 PM

IN DEFENCE OF SOMMARUGA To

IN DEFENCE OF SOMMARUGA

To be fair, the recent blogger/new media pile-on on former ICRC president Cornelio Sommaruga is rather unfair.

The man stands pilloried for saying that if the IFRC (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies) allowed the Israeli Red Shield of David organization to be included as a national society with its chosen symbol, it would open the gates for other nationalities to use their national symbols instead of the standard ones. There is already of course, the Red Cross and the Red Crescent. (There have been other variations in the past, such as the Nazi Cross-Swastika combo, the Soviet cross-crescent combo, and pre-revolutionary Iran's Sun-Lion combo). And, by asking what rule would then allow them to exclude the Red Swastika organization, he raised an honest question, albeit in a less than tactful manner... if one does allow national self-determination in the question of internationally-accepted symbols for medical care, etc., how DOES one then draw the line to prevent objectionable ones? What would the rule be? Obviously most people want no more red swastika-crosses, but do want the Israeli organization in (including, I believe, Sommaruga). Sommaruga is guilty of an insensitive rhetorical overstatement, but he raised a good point. He was certainly not saying the Israeli national symbol and the Nazi national symbol are equally objectionable, but that's how it's been interpreted around here.

Yes, there are flaws with the UN proposal to investigate Jenin. Yes, the Red Shield of David organization should be given full rights in international bodies. And yes, Sommaruga's question to the head of the pro-Israeli American Red Cross could have been phrased more sensitively. But it was a fair question in a serious closed-door debate of an international body that, I believe for the most part, is just trying to do the right thing, here.

As a sidenote, Kazakhstan also stands excluded from the IFRC, because, largely due to its population mix of Christians and Muslims, it retains the Soviet Cross-Crescent combo, instead of picking one of the approved variants. Overall, the Red Cross is being more obtuse about this whole issue, than anti-Semitic: I believe many of the people taking the opposite side in this debate honestly believe that widespread dilution of the "Red Cross/Crescent" brand could someday lead to future honest confusion about which are vehicles in a warzone are ambulances and which are not, say. They could well be right. Or that the hypothetical adoption some day by a country like Finland or Sri Lanka (both of which would have a cultural identification with the swastika that predates Naziism) of a "Red Swastika" for similar reasons to Israel would seriously diminish the credibility of the organization, and could ultimately lead to its total collapse. Those, like the American Red Cross, who favour including the Israelis, need to come up with a rationally based rule of thumb that will let the right symbols in and keep the wrong symbols out. For Sommaruga and others to demand that they offer such a guideline prior to Israel's being seated at the table is not, in and of itself, evidence of anti-Semitism.

UPDATE: Eritrea is another country with a non-standard symbol that is not being admitted at this time either (it also still uses the Soviet cross-crescent).

Posted by BruceR at 12:14 PM