NationStates Jolt Archive

I've actually followed this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4508858.stm) story for many years. Israel has finally been given the right to join the ICRC, but can only use the star of david inside the crystal for domestic ambulences. I suppose it will resolve issues in places with diverse religious populations, allowing them to have a non-conflicting symbol. Still, why has Israel been denied the use of a star in every case while crosses and crescents can be used worldwide. A fair deal?

Very simple. The muslim lobby groups had tried to get the crescent accepted for a long time as well and it took some 60+ years before they managed to convince the ICRC to adopt it. Israel just hasn't been around as long as the lobby groups have and have finally managed to get enough pressure on the group to adopt their symbol.

Israel just hasn't been around as long as the lobby groups have and have finally managed to get enough pressure on the group to adopt their symbol.
But Israel didn't get their symbol. They aren't being allowed to use a regular star of david, and can't use one at all outside of Israel. I just think its exclusionary to allow Israel less than what christian or muslim nations are allowed to use.

I believe it all started when some Muslims percieved the cross of the red cross to be a religious affliation. Remember is a cross of equal length, not a crucifix. And then of course with the red crescent, this as well doesn't or shouldn't have religious affliations. The crescent that looks like a C is affliated with Islam whereas crescent in the opposite way like '>' is not. Whereas, the star of David is religious, full stop.

Note how the crescent of the ICRC has migrated from the latter crescent to the former crescent though
Turkish red crescent - http://www.worldwar1.com/neareast/lgphoto/tlp09.jpg
Red crescent now - http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images1/red_cross-crescent.gif

And considering anyway that the red cross is the reversal of the swiss flag and the red crescent comes from the byzantine empire (Islam isn't supposed to have holy symbols). These symbols aren't meant to have a religious affliations. The star of David has very obvious religious affliations.

Where is the red fat belly buddha eh? That's what I want to know.

But Israel didn't get their symbol. Why should I care?

Maby they just wanna make sure all the symbols can be abriviated with "RC"?

Maby they just wanna make sure all the symbols can be abriviated with "RC"?
Insanely enough, that actually might be it.

I believe it all started when some Muslims percieved the cross of the red cross to be a religious affliation...

I knew it! It was the muslim's fault!

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

They should make it the "Drab Grey Square". That offends nobody. Except the people that deserve to die, anyway.

I believe it all started when some Muslims percieved the cross of the red cross to be a religious affliation. Remember is a cross of equal length, not a crucifix. And then of course with the red crescent, this as well doesn't or shouldn't have religious affliations. The crescent that looks like a C is affliated with Islam whereas crescent in the opposite way like '>' is not. Whereas, the star of David is religious, full stop.

Note how the crescent of the ICRC has migrated from the latter crescent to the former crescent though
Turkish red crescent - http://www.worldwar1.com/neareast/lgphoto/tlp09.jpg
Red crescent now - http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images1/red_cross-crescent.gif

And considering anyway that the red cross is the reversal of the swiss flag and the red crescent comes from the byzantine empire (Islam isn't supposed to have holy symbols). These symbols aren't meant to have a religious affliations. The star of David has very obvious religious affliations.

The red cross is from the Knights Templar. I'm not sure if it goes even father back. They were the guardians of the holy grail according to some people and did various stuff way back in the day. Although I'm not sure of their exact religious beliefs I am under the impression that they are indeed christian. If I wasn't supposed to be writing a paper right now I would look more deeply into it.

I've actually followed this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4508858.stm) story for many years. Israel has finally been given the right to join the ICRC, but can only use the star of david inside the crystal for domestic ambulences. I suppose it will resolve issues in places with diverse religious populations, allowing them to have a non-conflicting symbol. Still, why has Israel been denied the use of a star in every case while crosses and crescents can be used worldwide. A fair deal?

The argument was that it is not a good idea to allow too many different symbols (for example, one symbol per religion) for an international institution with such presence as the Red Cross. The Red Cross has a number of highly important liberties, for example members are allowed to enter all areas of fighting or crisis on the globe, they cannot by international agreement be harmed or stopped in their work by any of the fighting parties, etc.

Now, imagine an organisation like this with, let's say, 5 different symbols. It would pose a danger to its members in the field, as you cannot expect every member of every fighting group ro know ALL the symbols.
The crescent was a consession after a long fight. It won't do to allow even more religiously affiliated symbols, that's why it was decided to go for a neutral one.

I believe it all started when some Muslims percieved the cross of the red cross to be a religious affliation. Remember is a cross of equal length, not a crucifix. And then of course with the red crescent, this as well doesn't or shouldn't have religious affliations. The crescent that looks like a C is affliated with Islam whereas crescent in the opposite way like '>' is not. Whereas, the star of David is religious, full stop.

Note how the crescent of the ICRC has migrated from the latter crescent to the former crescent though
Turkish red crescent - http://www.worldwar1.com/neareast/lgphoto/tlp09.jpg
Red crescent now - http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images1/red_cross-crescent.gif

And considering anyway that the red cross is the reversal of the swiss flag and the red crescent comes from the byzantine empire (Islam isn't supposed to have holy symbols). These symbols aren't meant to have a religious affliations. The star of David has very obvious religious affliations.

Yet the second image you show has the C - like Red Crescant. Which as you say, is a religious symbol... You blew your own statement out of the water. :|

And wait a minute, can we filthy commies get our own Red Star?

Of crosses, crescents and crystals (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3181083,00.html)

...After years and years of haggling, and even a financial boycott by the American Red Cross that has cost the Geneva-based society millions of dollars, the ICRC has come up with an upside-down, convoluted "solution" to the problem: It can't bring itself to let MDA's red Star of David into the room alongside the red cross and the red crescent (whatever happened to the oft-repeated phrase, "the three great monotheistic religions), but instead has created a new symbol, the absurdly named "Red Crystal". (Why are they calling it a crystal, anyway? It's a square teetering on one point. Oh, I see why they couldn't call it the red square. Why not call it a diamond?). It's the kind of backward solution Israelis would respond to by wrapping an arm around their heads in recognition of how ass-backwards it is.

..The Red Cross's mealy-mouthed argument against MDA's Jewish Star has been that the cross itself has no religious meaning. Huh? It came from the Swiss flag, which the Swiss government itself says is based on the symbol of the Christian faith used by Swiss tribes and cantons more than 700 years ago (Crusades, anyone?).

Muslim countries couldn't stomach the Red Cross any more than Israel could many years later, and the Arab world, led by the Ottoman Empire, pretty much adopted the crescent early in the 20th century (this, by the way, comes from the Red Cross's own website).

... If the cross is unacceptable to some, and the crescent is unacceptable to others, and the Star of David is unacceptable to nearly everyone, why not find a new, truly neutral symbol for all to use?

Put that unsteady crystal on everyone's ambulances. It would be a fitting symbol for today's unsettled times.

*snip*

Nice unbiased site you have there. *rolls eyes*

You want to break up the RC into a half dozen chop sockey symbols for battlefield use? Sounds like a recipe for friendly fire issues because nobody knew what the symbol stood for.

Fine, you don't like the plus sign. You don't like the reversed crescent. And people probably wouldn't like the star of david. The only thing that would work is if EVERYBODY went away unhappy and had to use a rhombus and nothing else.

Would you have a problem with that?

Nice unbiased site you have there. *rolls eyes*
You have something against me using Ynet? It's not your favorite Al-Jazeera, I suppose, but so far you're the only one complaining.


You want to break up the RC into a half dozen chop sockey symbols for battlefield use? Sounds like a recipe for friendly fire issues because nobody knew what the symbol stood for.
Oh no, haven't you read it? One nice neutral symbol for all. NO crescents, no crosses- just take that "crystal" and stick it on EVERYBODY's ambulances.


Fine, you don't like the plus sign.
Oh yes, I'm sure it was purely mathematical.


You don't like the reversed crescent. And people probably wouldn't like the star of david. The only thing that would work is if EVERYBODY went away unhappy and had to use a rhombus and nothing else.

Would you have a problem with that?
Nope, I wouldn't, evidently. ONE unified, 100% neutral symbol is the only real solution there.

But they won't do it, will they?

Yet the second image you show has the C - like Red Crescant. Which as you say, is a religious symbol... You blew your own statement out of the water. :|Not really, if you consider everything else I wrote. 1) It's not supposed to be that crescent. 2) The Quran doesn't make any mention of a crescent and goes on to forbid the use of holy symbols, but correct me if I'm wrong.

I think I read something on wiki that the cross is turkic in origin and the crescent it byzantine in origin (I'm sure it stretches further back than that). It's just rather ironic really.

You have something against me using Ynet?

The wording tells me quite a bit about the opinions of the person who wrote the article. The first bit about anti-semitism is laughable at best, considering just how hard the muslims had to lobby to get their crescent accepted. The ICRC certainly didn't want the crescent in the first place and they certainly didn't want the star of David either but the author acts like the society specifically targetted them. You're telling me that's not bias?

"Oh no! I don't get a free ride for my symbol! Whatever shall I do? I know, I'll declare them anti-semites. Just like how people play the race card to create false sympathy"


It's not your favorite Al-Jazeera, I suppose, but so far you're the only one complaining.

Might I point out that I'm the ONLY person to have actually responded to you since your post? You might be right about being the only one complaining, but that's because I'm the ONLY one who responded after you posted. And for your information, I don't use Al-jazeera. Nice ad hominem.


Oh yes, I'm sure it was purely mathematical.


I don't attach any religious significance to it. Maybe you do. But I don't.


But they won't do it, will they?

Because nobody would be happy. And don't try to pretend that Israeli special interest groups (read: religious crackpots) wouldn't try to lobby for the star of David. Just like the Christian and Muslim special interest groups (read: also religious crackpots) wouldn't try to lobby for their symbols.

You don't see anyone lobbying that the RC take a completely neutral symbol now do you?

And wait a minute, can we filthy commies get our own Red Star?

Already thought of it (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Ariddian_Red_Star). ;)

I was actually surprised once to find out that there's even a North Korean Red Cross (http://www.ifrc.org/address/kp.asp). But when you think about it, it makes sense. They need a universal symbol.

The red cross is from the Knights Templar. I'm not sure if it goes even father back. They were the guardians of the holy grail according to some people and did various stuff way back in the day. Although I'm not sure of their exact religious beliefs I am under the impression that they are indeed christian. If I wasn't supposed to be writing a paper right now I would look more deeply into it.As far as I know the Knights Templar were branded heretics and the origin of the cross they use stretches further back than christianity (did you know that the crucifex's short arm is supposed to represent feminity and sin, whereas the long arms represents masculinity and good. I think this is the only representation of duality that way round... I think)
...
Okay, it looks like the Templar used every single cross in existance during their 200 year existance.

But, whatever, I believe that the ICRC should only use the cross as it is far the easiest symbol to create in times of need. It utilises the simplest design for some one to make - two perpendicular lines.

If you really wanted to change the symbol, then I'd probably favour a circle, due to it's connections.

Of crosses, crescents and crystals (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3181083,00.html)

...After years and years of haggling, and even a financial boycott by the American Red Cross that has cost the Geneva-based society millions of dollars, the ICRC has come up with an upside-down, convoluted "solution" to the problem: It can't bring itself to let MDA's red Star of David into the room alongside the red cross and the red crescent (whatever happened to the oft-repeated phrase, "the three great monotheistic religions), but instead has created a new symbol, the absurdly named "Red Crystal". (Why are they calling it a crystal, anyway? It's a square teetering on one point. Oh, I see why they couldn't call it the red square. Why not call it a diamond?). It's the kind of backward solution Israelis would respond to by wrapping an arm around their heads in recognition of how ass-backwards it is.

..The Red Cross's mealy-mouthed argument against MDA's Jewish Star has been that the cross itself has no religious meaning. Huh? It came from the Swiss flag, which the Swiss government itself says is based on the symbol of the Christian faith used by Swiss tribes and cantons more than 700 years ago (Crusades, anyone?).

Muslim countries couldn't stomach the Red Cross any more than Israel could many years later, and the Arab world, led by the Ottoman Empire, pretty much adopted the crescent early in the 20th century (this, by the way, comes from the Red Cross's own website).

... If the cross is unacceptable to some, and the crescent is unacceptable to others, and the Star of David is unacceptable to nearly everyone, why not find a new, truly neutral symbol for all to use?

Put that unsteady crystal on everyone's ambulances. It would be a fitting symbol for today's unsettled times.


Yea man, Non Aligned States isn't the only one to question your source. That read more like an angry rant then a news article. Therefor I will give it the level of respect of an angry rant.

Yea man, Non Aligned States isn't the only one to question your source. That read more like an angry rant then a news article. Therefor I will give it the level of respect of an angry rant.
Thirded. I just skimmed past it, seeing as it wasn't bothering to actually make a point.