International Red Cross and the Star of David

Great Debates
1

There’s currently a debate going on between Israel and the Red Cross. Israel want the red Star of David to be accepted in the same the same way the Red Crescent is.

According to the official website of the International Red Cross Red Crescent:

However, it seems that the only reason the Red Cross symbol was chosen was because that is the Swiss flag and the Geneva Convention was held in Switzerland. If the Convention had been held in, say, Mongolia then the symbol would have been the Mongolian flag.

Although the cross is a Christian symbol, the Red Cross used by the IRC does not have religious significance.

I would say though that the Crescent and the Star of David do have religious significance. So they should never have allowed the Crescent in the first place.

The Red Cross go into war zones and their lives depend on them being seen as neutral. But once you bring religion into the mix, all neutrality goes out the window despite your best intentions.

Now that they have allowed the Crescent symbol, it allows the Israelis to say (with justification) “What’s the difference between the Crescent and the Star?”

They should never have allowed the Crescent in the first place and choosing a Cross as their symbol was a bad idea too.

I don’t know why the Swiss use a red cross as their flag (the English also use a red cross). I don’t know whether ultimately it has Christian origins.

I heard a theory that it has pre-Christian origins. The red cross represents the sun. It splits the flag into four squares representing the four seasons. There are secret societies named after the red cross (or the Rosy Cross) eg the Rosicrucians.

Whatever the origins, I don’t think we should allow the Star of David simply because it confuses the issue even more. It introduces yet another religion into the mix. We should get rid of both the Cross and the Crescent as well.

The solution the Red Cross have come up with is to introduce a third symbol to stand alongside the Cross or the Crescent:

This solution sounds unsatisfactory to me because it seeks to appease the religious pressure groups. I think we should ignore the religious pressure groups (on this one issue) and choose a symbol that is not identified with ANY religion.

After all, the whole point of this is to have a neutral aid agency that can be accepted by all factions (and all religions) in a war.

The whole point is to save lives not prosletyse your religion.

2

You can bet on that it has Christian origins, as should be less than surprising what with the nations you mention being rather on the Christian side of things.

The English red cross on white, or ‘argent a cross gules’ as the blazon would read is the symbol of St. George, the patron saint of England.

The white cross botony on red or ‘gules a cross botony argent’ of the Swiss stems from the time of the holy Roman empire. It was adopted as flag as late as 1889. It is out of the posthumous arms of St. Maurice, it also figures in the arms of St. Vitus and St. Ursus. The first being the patron saint of Switzerland and the second two of Geneva and Bern respecively.

I am not familiar with the history of the Red Cross symbolism, but irrespective I think we can safely conclude that the Christian origins of the organization as well as its cultural origin in Europe should lead us to understand the cross as a recognizable symbol associated with Christian charity and the Samaritan deed.

A symbolism which might just escape the non-Christians of the world, don’t you think?

Sparc

3

One of the apparent underlying reasons why former ARC President and CEO Dr. Bernadine Healy left back in October was not so much her bungling the WTC donations, but of her continued attempts to make the International Red Cross accept the Israeli Red Cross as a full partner.

Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger wrote an op-ed piece in the Washington Post on October 30, 2001:

Source: Red Cross Double Cross, By Lawrence S. Eagleburger - Washington Post, 30 October 2001

The Post article is no longer freely available from the Post web site, but you can find it widely distributed on quite a few website. Go to http://www.mideasttruth.com/mda.html to read it.

(Disclaimer: If you doubt the integrity of the article on the above site, search Google under “red cross eagleburger” and compare among those other sites reproducing it. I chose the site at random and have not read anything on the site itself other than the article.)

Addendum: In October 1999, Bernadine Healy, M.D., president and CEO of the American Red Cross, has named Lawrence Eagleburger as international ambassador-at-large to serve as a global representative for the American Red Cross and advocate of the Fundamental Principles of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. While there could very well be an implied bias in Eagleburger’s article two years later, IMHO, a former secretary of state who pulls no punches in his article is fully aware of any possible bias and credibility issues.

4

It seems to me that if the Red Cross/Crescent does not want the Star of Daivd as a common symbol, they should not have any religious symbols. kind of an all-or-none thing.

5

The whole matter smacks of anti-semitism/anti-israelism(?).

I don’t see the problem with red crosses and croissants and whatnot on humanitarian emblems. It is not as if though a ‘Red Cross’ worker forces you to covert before you get bandaged. Ditto for ‘Red Cresent’ and ‘Star of David’. Silly.

6

A neutral symbol would seem to fit the bill all around. Maybe a triangle?

7

The red cross doesn’t appear a strongly religiously connoted symbol to us because crosses are very common around us on flags, arms, etc…But it can obviously viewed in a different way in other cultures where a cross is…well…a cross, and an obvious symbol of christianism. Hence the red crescent.
The red cross sure opened a delayed pandora box when they allowed the muslim and the persian symbol back then. I read at some point that there has been some other countries, beside Israel, asking for a national symbol (though less vocally, probably). And I don’t think the red cross should allow more symbols, or at some point they will become unrecognizable and pointless (also, they will allow to identify the national origin of the people operating under the protection of this symbol…which could be a bad idea for these people…a soldier could be much more tempted to open fire nevertheless on red something team if he knows for certain that this team is from the ennemy’s country).
So, I do agree with the position of creating a new, religiously neutral, and universal symbol.

8

oh! And also…the RC doesn’t want to be perceived as a religious organization, which will be difficult to avoid if various countries go on asking for new religiously based symbols.

9

Would they refuse treatment to heterosexuals then?

In the somewhat futile game of suggesting symbols for a competition that has neither been announced nor have we been invited to: I’ll nominate the staff of Hippocrates.

Argent, Hippocrates’ staff gules.

Which is a secularized symbol from a long gone culture that in modern symbolism carries no other message than medication and care.

The most important part is that it is recognizable that any vehicle, staff member and so forth is a non-combatant. The predominant white color with a glaring red symbol is what does it. However I think that clairobscur has a point in that the symbols hould be neutral in the best of worlds.

This is of course classic heraldry and actually the last application of it on the battlefield that fulfills the original goal of recognizing a unit or individual from afar.

As it would be I think there is too much vested in the current symbols to do away with them. Therefore I would rather say they should just go ahead and accept the Israeli request. Let the Buddhists use a circle, if the want and so on. You get into somewhat of a symbolic moral quandary if you let the Zen use their symbols freely though, what with one of the more prominent symbols in the Zen movement being a swastika.

Sparc

10

One more point to throw in: although the crescent is a de facto symbol of Islam, it is not an official one by any means (insofar as a nonhierarchical religion like Islam can have “official” anything…).

11

Arguments that the Red Cross should have one neutral non-religious symbol, or that they shouldn’t have accepted the Red Crescent, are nice, and even well-founded, but completely miss the point.

The refusal for 50 years of the International Red Cross to accept Magen David Adom as an official memeber, because of MDA’s refusal to use a Christian symbol, is flat out antisemitic.

If they were really worried about confusion on the battle-field, or proliferation of religious symbols, they would have made one neutral symbol a long time ago. The inaction for 50 years speaks for itself.

Besides, I don’t think we have to worry about the people Israel is fighting not recognizing the Red Star of David as a medical symbol. Even if they recognized it, there’s no reason to think they’d care. There is well-documented evidence of numerous examples of the Palestinian Red Crescent Society using ambulances, hiding behind their red crescent, to ferry weapons to the battlefield, and bombers to Israel’s population centers, Geneva Convension be damned.

12

Its a bit too late to go telling the RED CROSS to change their design, isn’t it? I mean, thats who they are. Cult of personality and all that. Changing an organization’s identity is a bad thing.

13

So if the Crescent doesn’t symbolise Islam and the red cross doesn’t symbolise Christianity, isn’t that even more of a reason not to accept the Star.

You can argue that the first two don’t symbolise religions but you can’t argue that with the Star. The Star of David definitely symbolises Judaism.

In any case, most people generally think of Islam when they see the Crescent. Even if it isn’t an “official” Islamic symbol, it is widely seen as that.

They should never have allowed the Crescent in the first place but, now that they have, there’s no need to muddy the waters further by adding another religious symbol. They should have just kept using the Swiss flag.

If we had never allowed the Crescent in the first place then Israel wouldn’t even be arguing about this at all.

Sparc said:

Actually I thought the swastika was more of a Hindu symbol (meaning peace) than a Zen symbol.

The Nazis reversed it for their flag.

MHand said:

If we didn’t have a Red Crescent then this wouldn’t happen. The Red Cross should be an impartial, international outfit.

I believe another factor in favour of the Red Cross is that it’s easy to see from the air. They put huge Red Crosses on food storage bunkers in Afghanistan so that the bombers overhead know to avoid that area.

I think one of these bunkers did get hit accidentally during the war in Afghanistan but, even so, the idea is a good one. A crescent (or a Star) would be more difficult to see from 30 000 feet up.

I not sure that opposing the inclusion of the Star is an anti-semitic argument because there are perfectly good (non anti-semitic) arguments for not allowing the Star. Even if you don’t agree with these arguments, you have to accept that they don’t have anything to do with anti-semitism.

14

The Star of David is roughly as “religious” as the Crescent or Star and Crescent. The Star and Crescent was originally a Turkish tribal symbol, which only later became identified as an Islamic symbol when the Turks came to be the foremost Islamic power, and is still not accepted by some Muslims (especially not by strict Arab Muslims) as a symbol of Islam.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the geometrical figure of a six-pointed star is an ancient one, used variously by both Jews and non-Jews, including Christians. It only began to be soon as particularly Jewish from the 17th Century or so, gaining widespread acceptance as the symbol of Jewish identity in the 19th Century.

Neither the Star and Crescent nor the Star of David has the sort of unique religious symbolism to their religions as the Cross does to Christianity. Both are as much national as religious symbols; the Star and Crescent of a kind of Muslim pan-national identity, the Star of David as much of Jewish identity as an ethnic or national group as of Judaism. (In other words, “secular” Jews, like the original Zionists, may embrace the Star of David as a symbol of Jewish identity as a people with a distinct culture deserving of a nation-state, regardless of their beliefs about God.)

Had the Red Cross stuck to its guns and argued that the red cross emblem is simply a striking and easily recognizable geometric figure, then opposition to providing Jews with their own emblem would not necessarily be anti-Semitic. However, the Red Cross didn’t do that. They not only approved the Red Crescent, but until the Islamic Revolution Persia or Iran used the Red Lion and Sun, a national emblem (but not as far as I know a religious emblem) for its local equivalent of the Red Cross. Since the Red Cross has approved other ethnic/national/religious emblems before, why balk at the Red Magen David? They need to either a.) permit a multiplicity of emblems, which has obvious drawbacks; b.) insist that the Red Cross is simply a neutral emblem, and revoke the Red Crescent and any other variations–but since they didn’t do that back in the 19th Century, it’s almost certainly impossible now–and let’s face it, would have been somewhat disingenous back then, since Christian Europeans undoubtedly saw the Red Cross as a proper emblem of mercy in no small part because they associated its Christian overtones with charity, which leaves us with c.) come up with a new, neutral emblem, and rename the organization the Red Caduceus
or the Red Trapezoid or the Red Whatever. The situation is certainly kind of a mess; it would have been better if the well-meaning 19th Century Europeans had either been more culturally sensitive to non-European and non-Christian peoples, or stuck to their guns in imposing their Christian symbolism on everyone else, but there you are.

15

No. Both Hindu and Zen as well as number of other cultures and religions including Christianity have used the swastika oriented both ways. If you’re going to correct my wisecracks please be accurate while doing so.

16

See how much trouble we can get ourselves into when we start paying too much attention to symbols?

17

The non anti-semitic arguments for not allowing the star apply equally well to the Red Crescent, Red Lion, and other symbols that are have been allowed. Holding Jews to a different standard is anti-semitic.

The are easy and obvious solutions to the problem. The simplest is to let Red Magan Dovid Adam become an International Red Cross member. Other solutions include creating a new universal neutral symbol.

The fact that no attempt has been made in 50 years to implement ANY solution to this problem, is evidence of anti-semitism.

18

Sparc said:

Actually you’re right. The swastika has been used by many different cultures. I was associating it with India partly because I’ve been there and you see swastikas everywhere and partly because the swastika is the specific symbol of Ganesh, the Hindu Elephant God. Whenever I saw it in India, it was always in the reverse direction to the Nazi swastika.

And no need for your uppity tone, I only said I thought it was more of a Hindu symbol. I wasn’t betting my house on it. I was open to correction.

MEB

As I understand it, the reluctance to allow the Magen David stems from the fact that they don’t want to expand the number of emblems used. There are already too many.

Remember, they also won’t allow Eritrea’s symbol which is a red cross and a red crescent.

OK so strictly speaking,

  • the Star doesn’t symbolise the Jewish religion, it symbolises Jewish identity (which may or may not include Jewish religion). However most Muslims (and most Christians) on seeing a star of david will assume some kind of Jewish connection

  • the crescent doesn’t, strictly speaking, symbolise Islam but most Jews (and most Christians) on seeing a crescent will assume some kind of Muslim connection

  • the cross does represent Christianity but the red cross used by the Red Cross isn’t a Christian cross, it’s the Swiss flag. Even so, however, most Jews (and most Muslims) on seeing a cross will assume some kind of Christian connection

The point I’m making is that the Red Cross operate in the real world where guns are being fired. They don’t operate here in GD where we can all discuss the niceties of what each symbol really represents.

Most people, on seeing these symbols, will make assumptions about the identity of the people using that particular symbol. They will assume they are either Christian or Muslim or Jewish depending on which symbol they are using.

We need to get away from this situation by getting rid of both symbols currently used. Adding yet another religious symbol will only make matters worse.

We have a situation at the moment where the Israeli army doesn’t trust vehicles that are flying the Red Crescent. This is unacceptable. Aid agencies should be above suspicion. They should be universally recognised by all parties to a conflict as being completely neutral.

I actually quite like sparc’s suggestion of using the staff of Hippocrates, although I don’t know how well it would work in practice.

To my mind, each new symbol we add increases the quotient of confusion and potential misunderstanding - a very bad thing in a war zone.

Like it or not, these three symbols - the cross, the crescent, and the star are associated (in most peoples minds) with three different religions. I don’t understand why an aid agency has to be associated with any religion.

MHand said:

It’s not just Jews that are being “picked on”. They also won’t allow Eritrea’s claim. Just because the Red Cross say no to a request made by Israel doesn’t mean they are automatically anti-semitic.

It would be an easy solution, I agree, but it wouldn’t necessarily be the best solution. Each new symbol we add dilutes the perceived neutrality of the organisation. And with this particular organisation, perceived neutrality is their strongest point.

They don’t have an army so they can’t force their way into a war zone, they have to rely on all the combatants allowing them in and giving them safe passsage.

I don’t think it is evidence of anti-semitism. It’s evidence of a reluctance to expand the number of symbols used.

There’s only 5 million people in Israel. What happens when Russia or China or India request their own symbol? Do we say yes to them as well? Hell, why don’t we just have a different symbol for every country in the world?

We currently have two symbols and that’s one too many.

19

If Sovjet Union would liked to have an own symbol? A shiekel and a hammer. Very nice for the doctors operating a patient (this is meant as a joke).

I think this question has endless…, whatever.

I would like to have the mathemathical signe for “Infinite”.
You know this twisted ellipse looking like an 8, that is turned 90 degrees.

Just to think “infinite”:

  • In this ambulance/hospital or what-ever lies patiens before “the infinite”.
  • All religions I know, has in the end the thought of “infinite”. Even for me as an non-believer, the universum is infinite.
  • We are always (infinite) helping…
    etc., etc.

I hope You got my thought, just have some difficulties to put it clearly here.