At least they agree on the colour

Diplomacy, they say, is war by other means. So the Arab and Israelis have been slugging it out at the ICRC.

Diplomacy, they say, is war by other means. So the Arab and Israelis have been slugging it out at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) with Israel demanding recognition of the Red Star of David as an ICRC symbol since 1949. The existing symbols, it was argued, bore unwelcome religious implications — Christian (Red Cross) and Islamic (Red Crescent). The Israeli demand was denied, as much for ideological reasons as for unswerving Arab opposition. A little dose of arm-twisting was also applied — the American Red Cross withheld $ 45 million in dues to the ICRC in protest against the denial of Israel’s demand. After much haggling, a compromise was reached in December 2005. It was decided that the new symbol would be a ‘neutral’ ‘Red Crystal’.

HT Image

So the ICRC formally adopted the ‘Red Crystal’ as its official symbol on June 22. However, the ICRC, while granting recognition to the ‘Red Crystal’, also admitted the Palestine Red Crescent Society by making an exception to its statute that grants membership only to relief societies from sovereign States.

The move has set a precedent of questionable merit. It detracts from the basic idea of having a single emblem to mark vehicles and buildings protected on humanitarian grounds. So does it go against the ICRC’s basic tenet of apolitical humanitarianism where religion plays no part? It remains to be seen how far the ICRC will go to be politically correct. Attempts have been made in the past to have other religious symbols recognised. In the Twenties, Persia’s Qajar Shah had mooted a ‘Red Lion with Sun’. There were demands by Sri Lanka in 1957 and India in 1977 to establish a Red Swastika. Hope the Sangh parivar isn’t reading this.