|
The International Red Cross launched its new "Red Crystal" brand symbol this month -– an addition to its roster that includes the original Red Cross designed in 1863, and the Red Crescent, which Muslim nations adopted in the 19th century because the cross reminded them of Christian crusaders. Why add a third identity...?
Israel’s application for membership to the International Red Cross Organization (ICRA) for its Magen David Adom (MDA) emergency medical, disaster, ambulance and blood bank service, had been on the table for over half a century. With the red cross and red crescent recognized internationally as generic religious symbols representing Christianity and Islam, the MDA has been using a red Shield of David all these years.
In order to allow Israel “in,” the country had to compromise and accept the red crystal emblem. Why the compromise?
Accordng to an article by the ADL:
“MDA had long been denied full membership in the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) because it uses the Red Star of David (the Magen David) as its emblem, and under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, member national societies of the ICRC are required to accept the ‘Ten Conditions for Recognition’ including that they, ‘Use the name and emblem of the Red Cross or Red Crescent in conformity with the Geneva Conventions.’ The ICRC had consistently maintained that this condition disqualifies MDA from being recognized as a national society.”
It wasn’t until a December 2005 conference, that the ICRA ratified the red crystal as a neutral symbol. Then, at the 29th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in Geneva in June of 2006, "237 countries voted to admit Magen David Adom, 54 voted against the move and 18 abstained. The motion was adopted in a vote after Arab and Muslim countries rejected all the compromise proposals aimed at reaching a consensus.”
From a marketing perspective, one would typically encourage the consistent use of one brand identity. However, when the brand’s graphic image has religious connotations that exclude others, then it can’t be perceived as an international symbol any longer.
What amazes me is the longstanding refusal and discrimination by the ICRA, long after they accepted the red crescent for use in Muslim countries. The American Red Cross, American Friends of Magen David Adom, and many other USA-based Jewish organizations are to be lauded for their lobbying efforts in this historic launch.
But, in reality, is it fair? Sure, the MDA is pleased that it has finally been accepted after all these years of being denied.
"We are pleased they created especially for us a new symbol that will be accepted the world over," said Dr. Noam Yifrach, chairman of the executive committee of Magen David Adom.
Yet, equality is still elusive in this solution. The ICRA did not accept the MDA’s red Star of David, as it does the cross and crescent – two religious symbols. The compromise comes in the form of the red crystal.
So, what message does this send the world community about acceptance, tolerance and respect? We’ll accept you but only if you don’t look Jewish.
BTW: The Israeli MDA organization now puts the red Star of David inside the crystal's frame. Way to go.
|
Comments
In one respect, I hate the decision to forbid the use of the Star of David as a symbol of Jewish or Israeli religiosity such as the cross and crescent represent Christianity and Islam, respectively (although advocates from either camp might deny they represent such things).
On the other hand, from a practical standpoint, using a secular symbol in Israel may actually safeguard the lives of those who loft the banner from destruction at the hands of terrorists who are inclined to hate anything Jewish, including their symbolic manifestations. It's not pleasant to talk or think about, but that is the reality on the ground. I don't know how effective using a different symbol will be, though, since it will in essence represent the same thing. Failing to assuage any concerns on account of safety, I don't like the appearance of appeasing those who would blow up humanitarian workers because of their religion.
Posted by: Cam Beck | 01.23.07
Elaine,
Thanks for writing about this. Of course, it is not fair. There is always a double standard when it comes to Israel. The fact that the sticking point for over half a century was the picture, rather than the organization's actual activities, shows what a farce it was - especially when the Arab countries were already using their own symbol that deviated from the Red Cross' "brand." Sadly, it's just business as usual in the international community.
Cam - the irony is that those who would target MDA personnel are the same people who would receive medical assistance from MDA without hesitation if they became sick or injured within Israel's borders. Sadly, the Red Crescent ambulances in the Palestinian territories seem to be used for smuggling bombs and weapons more often than actually helping people who need it.
Posted by: Nedra Weinreich | 01.23.07
Unfortunately, Nedra's right. There is a double standard at play when it comes to anything Israeli.
Cam, as for using a generic symbol as a safeguard against terror, the MDA is placing the red Star of David within the crystal symbol, so there's no benefit in being anonymous here. Although I appreciate your theory, terorists adapt quite easily, and even if the MDA did away with the star, and used the crystal exclusively within Israel, the ambulences and ground personnel could still be deemed targets.
The situation is a lose-lose one, I'm afraid, no matter what brand identities are utilized. It's the cycle of hate that needs to be tackled, and that's not about to change easily when many children in Arab lands are raised and educated with hatred in their homes and schoolbooks.
Posted by: Elaine Fogel | 01.23.07
Nedra, you're right on both counts.
Elaine - I agree with your points. I do not suggest that changing the symbol would be an effective way to repel terror, but that incompetent, politically correct sycophants might use this rationale to justify the expression of a Jewish religious symbol.
I'm very glad you brought this subject to light.
Posted by: Cam Beck | 01.23.07
"Elaine - I agree with your points. I do not suggest that changing the symbol would be an effective way to repel terror, but that incompetent, politically correct sycophants might use this rationale to justify the expression of a Jewish religious symbol."
Should read: "Elaine - I agree with your points. I do not suggest that changing the symbol would be an effective way to repel terror, but that incompetent, politically correct sycophants might use this rationale to justify the SUPPRESS the expression of a Jewish religious symbol."
Feel free to modify the original post and delete this one.
Posted by: Cam Beck | 01.23.07
Forgive my grammar. Haste makes for a poor proofreader.
Posted by: Cam Beck | 01.23.07
No problem, Cam. I figured that's what you meant.
Posted by: Elaine Fogel | 01.23.07
Thank you for this post. It's frightening and sad. One can only pray that all nations will adopt one symbol and agree that it represents one thing...you will only be met with help and compassion at this site.
Someday?
Posted by: Tammy Strnatka | 01.24.07