Jeff Weintraub (via Normblog) writes a post I have been meaning to write forever. It relates to why I don’t donate [1] to the Red Cross: the International Federation’s refusal to grant the Israeli branch – Magen David Adom – full membership. The post is motivated by this editorial in The New York Times. The author of the editorial explains:
The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies includes Red Cross organizations from North Korea, Iran and Cuba, but not from Israel. The reason it gives is that the corresponding Israeli society, Magen David Adom, uses the Jewish star as its emblem and will not adopt the red cross or red crescent, emblems that are recognized by the Geneva Conventions and the international Red Cross movement. Understandably, the Israelis do not want to adopt either of these emblems because they are heavy with religious meaning.
It seems like the issue is all about symbols. But as Jeff Weintraub notes, the opposition to admit the Israeli branch comes from particular countries and reflects more politics than a conflict over images.
Opposition by Red Crescent branches from Islamic countries, including but not restricted to the Arab world, has always been the decisive factor preventing the inclusion of Israel. It is now more than a half-century since the creation of Israel, and it is time for these countries to come to terms with Israel’s existence – not to endorse Israel’s policies, or even necessarily to make peace with Israel (if that seems too radical), but just to accept its existence. If they can’t bring themselves to do this, then at least the international Red Cross/Red Crescent organization should do so.
The NYTimes editorial ends by explaining why it is ironic and troubling for the actions of an organization such as the ICRC to be so politically motivated:
Despite all the talk of emblems, it is politics that have impeded Israel’s entry. That situation puts the Red Cross movement in an unfortunate position. The International Committee of the Red Cross, the arm of the movement that works in conflict zones and visits prisoners, often finds itself urging nations to put politics aside and do the right thing, such as in its current work on behalf of the detainees at the American prison in Guantánamo Bay. It will be in a better position to make these moral appeals when it can show that it is part of a movement that does what is right, rather than what is politically expedient, when it comes to running its own shop.
1. Of course, my actions may well be unfair to the American Red Cross given that it has tried to pressure the International Red Cross to ending its boycott of the Israeli organization. Nonetheless, there are enough other organizations in need of donations that I will continue to channel my support away from ones with strong ties to such overt anti-Israel stances.
{ 58 comments }
P ONeill 05.04.05 at 9:51 am
Apart from anything else, you’d think the ICRC might still be a tad embarrassed by their somnolent attitude to the Holocaust (e.g. the notorious Theresienstadt visit). But to mix the serious and the less consequential — there’s at least one case where the Arab boycott of Israel is just plain stupid: does anyone think that Israel is worse off for having to play all its football against European clubs and countries?
des von bladet 05.04.05 at 9:57 am
Before the inevitable trollfest gets underway in earnest, we wish to suggest a distinction between “anti-Israel” and “anti-Israeli” positions. States are not merely collections of persons, after all.
But more seriously, the Eurovision Song Contest – in which Israel is of course a longstanding participant – recently insisted that Lebanon had to broadcast _all_ the entries or withdraw. (It withdrew.)
Which just goes to show – as we, for one, have always maintained – that the ESC is indeed Yoorp at its best.
Eszter 05.04.05 at 10:08 am
Des – I suspect you were referring to the title of the post. I’ve changed it. I meant to say “anti-Israel” and the “i” at the end was not politically motivated. (I have a bit of a hard time distinguishing between the two depending on the context, possibly due to the fact that in my native language “i” at the end of a word makes an adjective out of the word, which in this case would make sense (adjective modifying “boycott”). I don’t think I tend to mix languages much, but I think in some very specific cases I get confused.)
des von bladet 05.04.05 at 10:15 am
Eszter: I suspect I was mostly referring to the last sentence, but Hungarian morphology is an entirely acceptable defence.
Eszter 05.04.05 at 10:19 am
I see, that also makes sense. I’ve changed that one as well to avoid misunderstandings. (Same possible source of confusion, adjective modifying “stances”.)
KCinDC 05.04.05 at 10:21 am
Eszter, don’t blame your English-language skills. I’m a native speaker and I don’t agree with Des’s distinction. The national adjective rather than the country name seems more grammatical in that context. “Anti-French boycott”, “anti-English boycott”, and “anti-American boycott” seem better than “Anti-France boycott”, “anti-England boycott”, and “anti-America boycott” (though the first two do have the possible ambiguity that “French” and “English” are also language names, but that doesn’t apply to “Israeli”).
Jonathan Dursi 05.04.05 at 10:35 am
The `Red Cross’ is the inversion of the Swiss flag, long a symbol of neutrality. Any religious `meanings’ of that symbol are at least two steps removed. Still, the Red Crescent got added, and I think it would be best if another symbol could be added.
However, this is difficult. The Red Cross/Red Crescent symbols aren’t just nifty logos; they have legal implications. The laws of war make it is illegal to fire on a vehicle or tent or… flying the Red Cross or Red Crescent. Those symbols, unfortunately, are hardcoded into the Geneva conventions; adding another symbol to that list would require the signatories to agree to make additions to the Geneva conventions. Given the current political climate in the US, opening up the Geneva conventions to renogotiation is unlikely to be a huge step forward for human rights.
Right now, if the ICRC admitted Magen David Adom as a member, much of the international legal protection that membership might provide would be meaningless unless they chose to use one of the two hardcoded symbols.
There is also a fair amount of fairly reasonable politics involved, too, as well as the nastier stuff. The ICRC is understandably a little upset about, as a matter of policy, the Red Crescent’s legal protection being ignored by the IDF. It may not be fair to hold MDA to account for the IDF or Government of Israel’s actions, but it’s not that difficult to understand, either.
Louis Proyect 05.04.05 at 10:50 am
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/action/nw/hpn/newslet/israel2002.shtml
Firing at ambulances
All the March reports agree that the IDF has treated Palestinian medical services without respect for international standards. The situation probably reached its nadir during the first incursion into the West Bank but has not improved much in the present phase of occupation. One of the reports’ most striking findings was the number of ambulances that had been shot at by members of the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) in March.
Amnesty International was told by Peter Hansen, Director of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA)1, that more than 350 ambulances had been denied access and 185 ambulances had been hit by gunfire. “I would strongly suggest that when 185 ambulances have been hit, including 75% of UNWRA ambulances….this is not the result of stray bullets by mistake hitting an ambulance, this can only be by targeting ambulances” he said. Since February 2002 six medical personnel have been killed and many wounded by IDF fire. The head of the Palestinian Red Crescent in Tulkarem told Amnesty International delegates “I find it safer now to send patients needing dialysis or other medical treatment by taxi, rather than by ambulance”.
The situation should be clear. Articles 16-20 of the fourth Geneva Convention state that the provision of medical treatment to the wounded and the immunity of medical teams and hospitals are fundamental principles of the laws of war, which bind combatants in all circumstances and these apply to an Occupying Power. There are only two circumstances where these rules may be breached: firstly, when ambulances are illegally used for military purposes; and secondly, when delay in rescuing or assisting the sick or wounded is unavoidable because of hostilities and military considerations.
The spokesmen for the IDF give the excuse that there have been numerous instances where ambulances have been discovered to be carrying Palestinian combatants or arms, but the Palestinain spokespersons deny this. In one of the most striking cases the IDF captured a man dressed as a doctor. They claimed that he was a combatant using this disguise to pass through the lines. In fact, as B’tselem proved, he really was a doctor. After several hours in detention during which the General Security Services attempted to recruit him to collaborate with Israel, he was released.
In spite of stating that they have records of numerous infringements, they have not produced any concrete evidence to support their allegations and, further, there have been numerous instances where ambulances have been checked by the IDF, given the green light, but still shot up.
SoCalJustice 05.04.05 at 10:56 am
The ICRC is understandably a little upset about, as a matter of policy, the Red Crescent’s legal protection being ignored by the IDF.
Shouldn’t the ICRC be “a little upset about” Hamas and others using Red Crescent ambulances to pull off attacks as well?
From USA Today, October 23, 2000 (lexis search):
“Palestinians have begun attacking Israeli soldiers in what appear to be well-planned and coordinated ambushes involving not only youths but Palestinian Authority policemen and civilian
ambulance drivers. Ambulances are delivering stones, and sometimes fighters, to the front lines, despite official denials.
[…]
Palestinian ambulances, their horns blaring and lights flashing, begin racing toward the front lines to pick up the wounded. But before picking up an injured youth, one ambulance can be seen dropping off two buckets of rocks and a crate of bottles to be used as Molotov cocktails.
Seconds later, another ambulance races onto a nearby hill, its horn blaring and lights flashing. But there are no youths on the hill. The driver gets out and fires two shots at the tank in a vain effort to hit the Israeli soldiers before jumping back in and driving off.”
Peter 05.04.05 at 11:01 am
socialjustice, why don’t you tell us who the author of the USA Today article is? I’ll give you a hint…
Nudnik 05.04.05 at 11:14 am
Peter, regardless of that, Israel has stopped ambulances carrying bombs on a number of occasions. And it was not just the USAToday that reported it.
Dan Simon 05.04.05 at 11:26 am
The International Red Cross’ refusal to recognize the Magen David Adom long predates any allegations against the IDF about failing to honor the Red Crescent symbol. The latter are associated with the most recent outbreak of violence, which began in 2000, while the MDA’s history–including its history of rejection by the ICRC–goes back to 1935. Hence the complaints invoked against the MDA as a reason for its exclusion from the ICRC are a transparent pretext.
Uncle Kvetch 05.04.05 at 11:40 am
Only 11 comments in, and already we’ve had “Well, they started it” and “Two wrongs actually do make a right.” How long before we reach the point of “No, you’re a Nazi,” I wonder.
Every “discussion” of Israel & Palestine on this site just reinforces my conviction that the entire situation is well and truly intractable, and that the suffering on both sides will never end. If I’m wrong about that, somebody please set me straight–by which I don’t mean “I will explain to you why it’s all the other side’s fault.”
Louis Proyect 05.04.05 at 11:43 am
The item about IDF shooting at Red Crescent ambulances is not meant to excuse the exclusion of Israel from the International Red Cross. I see no useful purpose being served by that, although I do see merit in other boycotts. It was instead intended to put things in perspective. Supporters of Israel put forward a scenario of a plucky, democratic oasis in the barbarian Middle East while the reality is nothing like that. Israel is a brutal, expansionist power that needs to be condemned before the court of public opinion. Instead of yelping about the boycotts, Crooked Timber should be more cognizant of the underlying causes for the tendencies toward ostracizing Israel. They are healthy, just as they were with respect to apartheid South Africa.
jet 05.04.05 at 11:50 am
Dan Simon – Stopping Israeli/Palestinian amblulance flame wars in under 2 posts.
abb1 05.04.05 at 11:55 am
What’s their stated reason for refusing to use red cross or red crescent instead of magen david? Is there a rational reason? I can’t imagine even a halfway rational reason. Does China accept the emblem or do they demand a yin/yang or something?
Thanks.
abb1 05.04.05 at 11:57 am
I mean, who is boycotting whom here?
Jonathan Dursi 05.04.05 at 12:28 pm
I shouldn’t have even mentioned the IDF, for which I apologize; it has a horrible effect on the quality of conversation.
What I was trying to point out is that there is a lot of politics going on, not all of the hate-based variety. It’s completely true that the ICRC didn’t allow Magen David Adom into the fold long before the current mess, and I have no idea what the reasoning was then — it could have been innoccuous or it could have been completely bigoted. But why it wasn’t done *then* isn’t so much the point. Right now, there are a lot of events which make things harder than they need to be.
Jonathan Edelstein 05.04.05 at 12:51 pm
Hey RSL, if you’re paying attention and are interested in continuing the conversation from the last thread, send me an e-mail.
Dan Simon 05.04.05 at 12:59 pm
But why it wasn’t done then isn’t so much the point. Right now, there are a lot of events which make things harder than they need to be.
Back “then”, the pretext was that the MDA wouldn’t use the standard red cross symbol. As far as I know, that continues to be the pretext even today–long after the ICRC formally accepted the world’s Red Crescent Societies, and the (former) Iranian Red Lion and Sun, into its fold.
Right now, there are a lot of events which make things harder than they need to be.
Do you mean it’s “harder” to admit the MDA into the ICRC? Before, it was impossible. Now, it’s impossible. What reason is there to believe that any recent “events” have had the slightest effect on its difficulty?
Donald Johnson 05.04.05 at 12:59 pm
On the blame thing, the rational thing to do is to blame all powerful parties involved–the Israelis have acted as racist colonizers, the Arab governments and various Palestinian organizations as antisemitic terrorists, and the US has happily supported Israel as it performs its South Africa imitation. There is no justification for singling out Israel as particularly evil when you consider all the other monsters in the world, which is why the boycott is wrong and borders on antisemitic, but there’s also no justification for the way mainstream America has whitewashed Israel’s history. (I’ve got well-read friends who seem blissfully unaware of the fact that Israel became a Jewish state in part from ethnic cleansing.)
A rule of thumb I find useful is that in most conflicts all the powerful actors are wrong. The I/P conflict is not one where you’ll go wrong employing it.
Dan Simon 05.04.05 at 1:15 pm
What’s their stated reason for refusing to use red cross or red crescent instead of magen david? Is there a rational reason?
As I’ve explained, the ICRC’s claim to refuse to admit the MDA based on its symbol is a transparent pretext. After all, the ICRC has long been happy to recognize the red crescent and red lion and sun as alternative symbols, and I know of no comparable case of an alternative symbol being rejected. Under the circumstances, then, it would be foolish for the MDA to go to the enormous trouble and expense of changing its symbol, only to discover a new transparent pretext raised in place of the old one. (I might add that several commenters here have already suggested candidate pretexts, should one be needed in a pinch.)
abb1 05.04.05 at 1:20 pm
Dan, if that’s merely a pretext – why not just remove the pretext and accept the freakin cross as the emblem? Until then, you have no grounds for complaining. That’s all there is to it – no?
Alphonsevanworden 05.04.05 at 2:09 pm
The problem is that Israel does not officially recognize the ICRC, an organization dedicated to upholding and monitoring the observation of international humanitarian law TO WHICH THE STATE OF ISRAEL REFUSES TO BECOME A SIGNATORY.
That’s the issue: the state of israel DOES NOT RECOGNIZE the laws of which the ICRC is the guardian.
Not the other way around.
Here is the list of signateurs to the g coventions and additional protocols according to which the icrc operates and which it’s work upholds:
http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/party_gc/$File/Conventions%20de%20Geneve%20et%20Protocoles%20additionnels%20ENG.pdf
Uncle Kvetch 05.04.05 at 2:14 pm
A rule of thumb I find useful is that in most conflicts all the powerful actors are wrong. The I/P conflict is not one where you’ll go wrong employing it.
Donald, your summing-up of the situation is pretty much identical to my own. No one is blameless in this. So, beyond “A plague on all their houses,” do you see any possibility for progress? And is there anything proactive that progressives in the US & the UK can do to foster that progress? Or is total resignation really the only sane position at this point? We do choose our battles, after all…
Jonathan Edelstein 05.04.05 at 2:19 pm
That’s the issue: the state of israel DOES NOT RECOGNIZE the laws of which the ICRC is the guardian.
Based on the link you provided, Israel is one of 29 countries that has ratified Geneva-4 but not the additional protocols. The United States and India are also members of this group, and I’m not aware that either country has been expelled from the ICRC.
So in other words, I’m calling bullshit.
markus 05.04.05 at 3:45 pm
The thread has confused me a little, but if I got everything, it seems, that the IRCRC has some current problems with Israel concerning ambulances, some longstanding trouble concerning the ratification of Protocol I and II (which, AFAICT relate to civil war and wars for freedom/self-determination, which in turn seems immediately relevant to Israel*) plus some members with anti-Israeli opinions and thus is not willing to expend effort and political capital to change the Geneva Conventions to accomodate MDA.
MDA on the other hand is unwilling to expend effort and suffer a symbolic loss and use another symbol (and e.g. lobby for a change to the GC afterwards).
If I got that right, I don’t see how anyone can say blame clearly rests with one side.
Personally, I wouldn’t be willing to go through all the hassle of changing the GC just to accomodate one national organisation which can’t be bothered to change its symbol. Apart from the hassle, I’d want to avoid the precedent. Next thing you know, some discordians come along and want to have a triangle variant.
* 2nd additional Protocol excludes situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence and other acts of a similar nature, as not being armed conflicts. Since anything upscale seems to be covered in the two additional Protocol, I’d assume the Israel-Palestine conflict would fall under these two additions. Which in turn, to me looks like Israel actually does not recognise the IRCRC in the way that counts.
Dan Simon 05.04.05 at 3:59 pm
Dan, if that’s merely a pretext – why not just remove the pretext and accept the freakin cross as the emblem? Until then, you have no grounds for complaining. That’s all there is to it – no?
….And if the MDA did change its symbol, and the ICRC found another pretext for excluding it, would you then agree to condemn the ICRC for unfairly imposing conditions on the MDA that aren’t being imposed on anyone else? Or would you instead ask why the MDA doesn’t simply satisfy the next pretext, instead of complaining?
In the latter case, how many cycles of this would you be willing to go along with, before finally admitting that the MDA is being excluded for reasons that have nothing to do with the ICRC’s stated pretexts?
And in the former case, why not just skip a step, and admit right now that the ICRC is unfairly imposing conditions on the MDA that aren’t being imposed on anyone else?
Eve Garrard 05.04.05 at 4:11 pm
If the MDA ought to be prepared to accept the cross as its symbol, presumably the Red Crescent countries ought to as well. Does anyone suggest that the ICRC should require them to do that? We can all see why that might be objectionable. Why isn’t that just as visible in the Israeli case, thus preventing this red herring from appearing in the argument in the first place? (perhaps we should demand that they all accept a red herring as their symbol …)
abb1 05.04.05 at 4:22 pm
This is all nonsense, Dan. Totally unnecessary nuisance and aggravation; vanity of vanities and vexation of spirit.
Scott Martens 05.04.05 at 4:36 pm
Membership in the IFRC requires a 60% majority of member states. (http://www.ifrc.org/who/constit/constit3.asp) Israel’s request for recognition of the Magen David was rejected in a secret ballot in 1949 by 22 to 21. Since there weren’t 21 Arab states at the time, and Israeli independence had recently been recognised at the UN by a substantial majority, I have to question whether anti-Israel sentiment was the real cause. India, which expressed a desire to use Hindu symbols at the same conference, was refused, backed down, accepted the red cross, and is a member society.
I haven’t been able to find out if Israel has even submitted an application in the last 50 years. If Israel applies and is not refered to the IFRC board, the President of the IFRC has to submit a report specifying exactly why. Ths report is subject to acceptance by the board. If Israel has applied and been refused, when was it, who refused, and what board members accepted the reasons given? I suspect Israel has not applied since the rejection of the Magen David as an alternative symbol, since there would be a paper trail and te name of person responsible, and I have not found any reference to such a person.
I just found this on the web: “The ICRC has been treating MDA, Israel’s national rescue service, as if it was a full fledged member of the International Red Cross, even though MDA has not been accepted yet as a member and the problem relating to the emblem has not yet been resolved,†said Yochanan Gur, chairman of MDA’s executive committee. (http://www.israaid.org.il/story_page.asp?id=266)
And this from the ICRC’s Director of International Law and Communication: “The present situation undermines the universality of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, since the majority of the Israeli population feels – for compelling reasons – that it cannot identify with either the red cross or the red crescent, whereas the Movement’s Statutes require each and every National Society to use one or other of those emblems. Consequently the Magen David Adom in Israel, which has been in existence for 70 years and provides remarkable humanitarian services, could not become a full member of our Movement. The Kazakh Red Crescent and Red Cross Society was in the same position. Since the population of Kazakhstan is almost equally divided between Christians and Muslims, the country’s parliament decided to use the double emblem of the red cross and red crescent, whereas the Geneva Conventions and the Statutes of our Movement provide for use of either the red cross or the red crescent. The same applies to Eritrea, although this country is not yet party to the Geneva Conventions. Whatever the reasons, the National Societies of Israel, Kazakhstan and Eritrea have for many years been unable to join our Movement as full members. This situation has lasted too long and must be remedied.”
This all does lead me to wonder if the claim that the emblem issue is just a pretext is really true. It certainly disinclines me to the villification of the ICRC on this issue, since neither its senior staff nor the majority of the membership appears to be the real problem.
On the other hand, I note a recent upsurge in anti-ICRC rhetoric, not from Israel or the MDA but from almost exclusively American sources, starting just after a confidential ICRC report was leaked last year complaining about coallition treatment of prisoners in Iraq. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0511-04.htm)
Look, I’m all in favour of admitting the MDA into the ICRC. I don’t give a crap about emblems, and I suspect that the ICRC’s efforts to create a single, new, more neutral symbol is the right way to go. It seems pretty plausible that this really is about equal measures of Israeli intransigeance about quasi-religious symbols and about the extraordinarily slow and exceedingly byzantine movements of international organisations. The ICRC just signed an extensive cooperation argeement with the MDA. Common international law protects identifiably medical vehicles and personnel independently of any Geneva convention, and the ICRC’s policy has always recognised this.
But, I do smell a rat here. It’s just that I suspect the rat is neither Israeli, nor Arab, nor involved with the International Red Cross.
Jonathan Dursi 05.04.05 at 4:46 pm
Dan:
Article 38, 1st Geneva convention, hardcodes the emblems. Yes, the red lion was included, but that was given up in the 80s.
It may well be pure out-and-out bigotry that MDA’s symbol wasn’t included at the time. So the question is, what is to be done now.
Right now, there is no legal protection for MDA’s symbol. MDA cannot act under protection in a war zone except in using one of the already-enshrined symbols. The ICRC has a proposal for a third universally recognized symbol that would obviate a lot of this mess — http://www.redcross.org.sg/IntSvc_EmblemIssue.htm — but it can’t have legal force until the Geneva signatories sign up to it. Since the current US government believes the Geneva Conventions to be `quaint’, I don’t know how well the renegotiations will go.
Perhaps you could point to another ICRC chapter that exclusively uses symbols which aren’t part of the Geneva Convention.
markus 05.04.05 at 4:54 pm
Just found:
IRCRC site on the third emblem
IRCRC FAQ on the emblem problem
MDA on the emblem
So, could someone please explain what is wrong about the argument that the number of emblems needs to be kept small if they are to be effective and that making “one” exception isn’t really the right way to go about adressing the problem?
And why it amounts to anti-Israeli sentiments if one – per scott martens post – expects them to act like the Hindus?
jet 05.04.05 at 5:05 pm
I’m curious as to what the point of this is, besides academic. Who is Israel likely to face, in war, that would respect international law anyways? An interesting debate, but with no real relation to the realities that be.
Alphonsevanworden 05.04.05 at 7:07 pm
That’s the issue: the state of israel DOES NOT RECOGNIZE the laws of which the ICRC is the guardian.
“Based on the link you provided, Israel is one of 29 countries that has ratified Geneva-4 but not the additional protocols. The United States and India are also members of this group, and I’m not aware that either country has been expelled from the ICRC.
So in other words, I’m calling bullshit.”
What do you mean, ‘bullshit?’ You must have some interesting priorities.
David All 05.04.05 at 7:10 pm
Ah Comrade Louis Proyect, yeah Israel is such a brutal expansionist power that it gave up the Sinai which included valuable oil fields for a peace treaty with Egypt and is now withdrawing unilaterly from the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians use of ambulances to carry ammunition and terrorists have been well documentated and filmed numerous times.
Don Johnson, how about the Jews driven out of the Arab countries after 1948? Seems they were ethnically cleansed as well. Most Arab countries today outside of Morocco today are pretty much Jew free or Juderin as the Germans would say. What happened after 1948 was an exchange of populations between Israel and the Arab countries. Nasty, but it has happened numerous times over the last century such as the exchange between Greece and Turkey in the 1920s and between India & Pakistan after independence in 1947, both of which involved several million people. Trouble is while Israel absorbed the Jews expelled, usually pennyless, from the Arab countries, the Arabs locked their Palestinian “Brothers” in “refugee camps” so they could be used as a weapon against Israel. Has lead to current situation where there are now 3rd and 4th generation “Palestinian refugees” in the camps. In no other situation has a group been allowed to claim refugee status as long as the Palestinians have.
Jonathan Edelstein 05.04.05 at 7:42 pm
What do you mean, ‘bullshit?’
It seems fairly straightforward to me:
1. Israel and 28 other countries have ratified the Fourth Geneva Convention but not the additional protocols.
2. Of those 29 countries, all but Israel and Eritrea are members of the ICRC (and, as mentioned by Scott Martens, Eritrea is ineligible for other reasons).
3. To the best of my ability to reseearch, the ICRC has never demanded that the remaining 27 countries ratify the additional protocols. Nor has it threatened to sanction them, or taken any other action indicating that it regards them as countries that do not recognize international humanitarian law.
4. Therefore, it seems pretty clear that the ICRC regards Geneva-4 as the main event and the protocols as optional, and that it considers any state party to Geneva-4 as a country that recognizes the law of which it is a guardian.
If you object to the term “bullshit,” I’ll amend my statement as follows: your citation of Israel’s failure to ratify the additional protocols as a reason for the ICRC’s denial of membership is unfounded.
Steve 05.04.05 at 7:56 pm
As I’ve explained, the ICRC’s claim to refuse to admit the MDA based on its symbol is a transparent pretext. After all, the ICRC has long been happy to recognize the red crescent and red lion and sun as alternative symbols, and I know of no comparable case of an alternative symbol being rejected.
As noted above, Dan, these symbols are all spelled out in the Geneva Conventions and, as Jonathan Dursi says, efforts to switch to the less politically charged (but potentially less likely to prevent IRC workers from being shot) “Red Diamond” have stalled. You can call it a pretext (it may well be one), but the IRC has “long been happy” to recognize the Red Crescent symbol because it dates back to the 19th century and has been specifically described in international law since 1929. If the state of Israel had existed when the Geneva Conventions were being drawn up, the Red Star of David might also have been included, given that Iran got a symbol of its own (which it abandoned after the Shah was overthrown) based on historical usage.
Peter 05.04.05 at 9:54 pm
I don’t want to get into a debate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict , but since the issue of Palestinian ambulances has come up on this thread several times:
The Palestinians use of ambulances to carry ammunition and terrorists have been well documentated and filmed numerous times.
No, it hasn’t. There is *one* case where the Israeli Defense Forces has been able to back up its claim of a Palestinian ambulance carrying explosives. There is another case of a Palestinian Red Crescent medic who carried out a suicide bombing in Jerusalem January 2002, and Israel claims she used an ambulance to transport herself to Jerusalem, although the Red Crescent disputes that claim. Most of the other claims by the IDF have not held up to scrutiny.
Anyway, human rights groups like B’tselem and the Amnesty report posted above have criticized the Israeli restrictions/attacks on Red Crescent ambulances as being totally disproportionate to security concerns.
I agree, though, that this issue should have no relevance to the MDA being excluded from the ICRC
Jagdish 05.05.05 at 1:19 am
The efforts to justify the exclusion of the MDA (in this thread) are no less hypocritical than AUT’s “reasons” for boycotting Israeli universities. Israel has become the pinata of certain elements of the “anti-imperialist” left, a surrogate for the U.S. (even when Clinton was in the White House) or Britain or just “the West”. Israel is an easier target than the others and it has the added attractions of being “illegitimate” and “racist”. And Jewish, so comparisons with Nazi Germany are especially effective. The arguments about symbols are, as Eve Garrard has recognized, just red herrings. The cross to Hindus (a religious group into which I was born) has nothing like the ominous 2000-year-old resonance it has to Jews (an ethnic group that includes my wife). That the Red Cross and the MDA have found ways of cooperating does not justify the latter’s official exclusion. Or the pathetic attempts here to “explain” another instance of Israel’s ghetto-ization.
Alphonsevanworden 05.05.05 at 4:37 am
“If you object to the term “bullshit,†I’ll amend my statement as follows: your citation of Israel’s failure to ratify the additional protocols as a reason for the ICRC’s denial of membership is unfounded.”
I don’t object to the term bullshit, just wanted to know what it was referring to. I didn’t state that this was the reason for ICRC’s denying MDA membership. I wrote that the issue of importance was the state of Israel’s attitude toward international humanitarian law, which the ICRC exists to uphold, not the ICRC’s attitude toward MDA.
MDA is basically joining the ICRC. This is an utter non-issue. MDA will be a full member of the ICRC, and the ICRC will continue to be weakened in its principle function by its American affiliate and others, long before either Israel or the US joins the international community in ratification of – and respect for – ihl.
Anyone concerned about the ICRC as an organization and who supports its functioning as a monitor and guardian of IHL might more fruitfully explore the shady financial and political doings of the American Red Cross, the ICRC’s failure to address them, and perhaps wonder what the MDA seeks to gain by joining. (Their own press releases stress a lost leverage against the Lebanese government which might have allowed access to captive Israeli soldiers, not a lost leverage which might have allowed MDA access to Khiam.)
Red cross organizations have differing degrees of independence from the states in which they operate. The American Red Cross is basically an arm of the US government, as the MDA is of the Israeli government. The independence of the icrc organization and its ability to monitor states’
observation of law is threatened by the close ties between some of its affiliated groups and their governments. Undoubtedly there are internal battles at the ICRC regarding the operations of affiliated groups like the American Red Cross, or MDA, which have no ability to and do not desire to perform their primary function as ihl watchdogs vis a vis their respective governments, but which instead serve increasingly to facilitate and support the agressive foreign policies of their states, (in Kosovo, for example.)
Certainly the emblem issue is a blind. But what does it really conceal?
Louis Proyect 05.05.05 at 9:17 am
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=7790
Why Us? (on The Academic Boycott)
by Tanya Reinhart
Yediot Aharonot, May 05, 2005
Translated from Hebrew by Mark Marshall.
A boycott decision, like that passed by Britain’s Association of University Teachers to boycott two Israeli universities, naturally raises a hue and cry among Israelis. Why us? And why now, “just when negotiations with the Palestinians might be renewed”?
It may be worthwhile, however, to consider how the world perceives us. In July 2004, the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled that Israel must immediately dismantle those parts of the wall that were built on Palestinian lands. We disregarded the ruling. We are turning the West Bank into a prison for Palestinians, as we have already done in Gaza in the course of 38 years of occupation, every one of which is a violation of UN resolutions. Since 1993 we have been engaged in negotiations with the Palestinians, and in the meantime we continued expanding settlements. In its judgement, the Court recommended to the UN that sanctions be imposed on Israel if its ruling is not obeyed. The Israeli reply – no need to worry! As long as the United States is behind us, the UN will do nothing.
In the eyes of the world, the question is what can be done when the relevant institutions do not succeed in enforcing international law? The boycott model is drawn from the past: South Africa also disregarded UN resolutions. At that time as well, the UN (under U.S. pressure), was reluctant to impose immediate sanctions. The South African boycott began as a grass roots movement initiated by individuals and independent organizations. It grew slowly but steadily until it finally became an absolute boycott of products, sport, culture, academia and tourism. South Africa was gradually forced to abrogate apartheid.
Martin Wisse 05.05.05 at 10:34 am
If i can recap this post and the thread it spawned:
an issue that seemed clearcut discrimination of an Israeli organisation (based on nefarious anti-semitic? reasons) turned out not to be so clearcut after all, with plenty of reasonable arguments as to why the state of affairs in the original post came about.
Eszter: do you think knowing all this now, you were wrong in boycotting the Red Cross?
David All 05.05.05 at 10:52 am
Comrade Proyect’s latest piece of trash quotes from an article in Z Magazine, which is so far to the left to fall off the spectrum entirely! The article asks Israelis to find out why “World Opinion” i.e. the Arab brown nosing Europeans hate them. That should be simple, Europeans have always hated Jews, unless they were conviently dead. That is why there is an Israel in the first place. If Israelis wish to have the Europeans like them they should either en mass commit sucide, then they could be honored as the Six Million Jews murdered by the Nazis are honored, or the Israelis can convert to Islam, the religion of western Europe’s (or at least France & Spain’s) future.
Fergal 05.05.05 at 1:48 pm
And – pace Martin Wisse – if I can recap the thread it would be thus:
There are utterly no instances of anti-Israel bias, (and, considering that this matter predates 1948, anti-Jewish bias) no matter how clearcut and transparent, that cannot be twisted so that the victims of this bias are made to seem the transgressors. Plus ça change.
abb1 05.05.05 at 1:51 pm
Hmm. Not sure what to say about the rant in general, but the article seems to be from today’s Yediot Ahronot.
Martin Wisse 05.05.05 at 2:21 pm
Fergal: yes, but then you would an idiot.
David All 05.05.05 at 7:07 pm
Fergal, I believe you have summed things up correctly.
abb1 05.06.05 at 6:08 am
So, again, why wouldn’t the MDA accept the cross or crescent? Anyone know? Are they a bunch of nuts or there is another explanation?
Thanks.
Fergal 05.06.05 at 7:30 am
So, again, why wouldn’t the MDA accept the cross or crescent? Anyone know? Are they a bunch of nuts or there is another explanation?
Your biases have always been evident, Abb1, but I’m beginning to think that your inability to read (and comprehend) might just have something to do with the sheer callousness of your comments.
From Eve Garrard: If the MDA ought to be prepared to accept the cross as its symbol, presumably the Red Crescent countries ought to as well. Does anyone suggest that the ICRC should require them to do that? We can all see why that might be objectionable. Why isn’t that just as visible in the Israeli case, thus preventing this red herring from appearing in the argument in the first place?
And if you still don’t know why some symbols offend people…
From Jagdish: The cross to Hindus (a religious group into which I was born) has nothing like the ominous 2000-year-old resonance it has to Jews (an ethnic group that includes my wife).
abb1 05.06.05 at 8:46 am
Fergal,
I can understand why some symbols might offend people. I just don’t understand why the ICRC emblem would offend any sane people. Which makes me question the sanity of those MDA functionaries.
Now, do you personally find ICRC’s emblem offensive? Do you know someone who does? Can you imagine someone who does and isn’t a crackpot?
Thanks.
Fergal 05.06.05 at 12:43 pm
Now, do you personally find ICRC’s emblem offensive?
No, I was born under the symbol of the cross. I am now an atheist but still have a weakness for church ritual.
Do you know someone who does?
Yes, at least one Muslim colleague. And, if I read Jagdish correctly, his wife.
Can you imagine someone who does and isn’t a crackpot?
See above. But why don’t you campaign (preferably in Arab and Muslim countries) to abolish the crescent as a symbol and the adoption of the cross instead?
abb1 05.07.05 at 2:50 am
Fergal,
crescent was adopted in 1876, it’s history now; why would anyone campaign for something like that?
You have a colleague who finds ICRC’s emblem offensive, really? Be careful.
Fergal 05.07.05 at 5:28 am
Abb1,
Unlike me, my colleague finds all religious symbols offensive, the cross in particular.
Speaking of “history”, the Magen David (star of David) is at once the official symbol (flag) of the state of Israel and a de facto symbol of the Jewish people (it has no official religious significance). So, to recycle your earlier formula…
Now, do you personally find this symbol offensive? Do you know someone who does? Can you imagine someone who does and isn’t a bigot?
These are, of course, rhetorical questions (to which I already know the answers).
abb1 05.07.05 at 10:41 am
Fergal,
I am not aware of any religion that uses ICRC’s red cross as its symbol.
ICRC’s red cross is not a religious symbol, it’s an ICRC’s emblem, that’s all.
I have no problem with magen david, but see – magen david is not an ICRC’s emblem. Hello? Anybody home? Is this still too complicated?
My thesis is: someone who wants to join ICRC but won’t accept ICRC’s emblem is a nutcase.
So, the easiest solution is: kick the nutcases out of the MDA, hire (or elect) some sane people and try again. Being governed and managed by crazies is not good for you anyway.
Fergal 05.08.05 at 6:34 am
So, the easiest solution is: kick the nutcases out of the MDA, hire (or elect) some sane people and try again. Being governed and managed by crazies is not good for you anyway.
Ah, yes Abb1, that’s the formula. It’s as simple as your earlier formula (from an old thread here that I just googled):
the state of Israel is the worst offender on earth. Isn’t it a good reason for ceaseless vituperation?
To which I can only borrow another commenter’s reply (and these will be my final words on the matter):
You’ve done the discourse on Israel and anti-semitism a great service. This thread will soon disappear as the tide of new posts rises on Crooked Timber. But your comments above will never wash away; they will remain a milestone of stupidity, the very definition of a special sort of bigotry. Whenever people want an example, they will surely be pointed to you.
abb1 05.08.05 at 6:58 am
Yes, I am, of course, a despicable person and a special sort of bigot. Those IDF fellas who shoot children for sport are angels compare to me.
Yes, it’s all true, but what about the MDA and the icrc emblem?
David All 05.09.05 at 5:32 pm
abbi, once again you are quoting the anti-Israeli smear artists at Lewis Lapham’ “Harpers”, which if not quite in the category of the Nazi-like rantings of the British rag, “The Independent”, it is not too far behind either.
Comments on this entry are closed.