Yes.
Posted on 09/13/2005 8:59:55 PM PDT by SmithL
A red diamond-shaped emblem called a "crystal" into which a red Star of David is inserted may be approved by a majority of the 191 countries who are members in the International Red Cross Movement and the national societies before the end of this year.
Late last night, diplomatic representatives of 123 countries were meeting at a "pre-conference" in Bern to tell the Swiss government whether they would approve recognition of a neutral symbol, in addition to the Red Cross and the Red Crescent, that would give legitimacy to other countries' first-aid, ambulance and blood supply societies.
Most eager is Magen David Adom, which has observer status and has been waiting for decades for full membership.
Dr. Noam Yifrach, chairman of MDA's executive board, told The Jerusalem Post in an interview Tuesday that the Swiss government had initially insisted that the decision by participating countries be unanimous. "But they have backed down, after it was made clear to them that if the Red Cross itself were put up to a vote today, it would not be unanimous."
Yifrach said he was "more optimistic now about us getting full membership than any time in the past."
The proposed four-sided shape is officially called a "crystal," as some countries objected to its being referred to as a "diamond" on the grounds that this recalled African slaves working in diamond mines, Yifrach said.
If the Swiss government finds that a majority of the countries are willing to vote for the crystal emblem at a diplomatic convention in October, such a vote would be followed by approval by member organizations from around the world who comprise the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
Yifrach says that if it reaches this stage, he is sure that the proposal will pass, because "we have near unanimous backing among member organizations, including the Egyptian, Jordanian and Palestinian Red Crescent organizations."
Israel's Foreign Ministry has sent representatives to persuade the governments to voice their support at the Bern meeting.
He recently took England-based Israeli magician Uri Geller, who is president of MDA's Israeli Friends organization, to see the Swiss foreign minister in Bern. Geller told him he felt that if a diplomatic conference is indeed held at the end of next month, it will be a success. Geller has not, however, used his spoon-bending powers to persuade member countries.
If the crystal emblem is approved, Israel will receive not only prestige as a full-fledged member of the International Red Cross movement, but its annual funding will be increased beyond its current $1.5 million.
In addition, Israelis from MDA will be able to ask to go to any country where their help is needed – including those where persecuted Jews need to be rescued or imprisoned Jews need to be visited – and receive immunity from being attacked when they hoist their red Star of David embedded in the crystal emblem.
The International Red Cross movement would not display all three symbols together, but use whichever one is relevant in each situation. "Even today," said Yifrach, "they don't use a red cross when they go to Iraq, because the Muslims there don't like Christian symbols. Instead, they write only ICRC [International Committee of the Red Cross] in letters.
"Arab countries have always said it is not the right time for MDA to get its own symbol," he added. "Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Libya and even Morocco will probably vote against us. Not having our own symbol was only an excuse, as Arab and Muslim countries opposed us for political reasons."
In 2003, the ICRC signed with MDA their first cooperation agreement, which included a commitment by the ICRC to donate $1.5 million a year to MDA projects and expressed increasingly closer ties.
So, what ever happened to the old name Red Cross? Are they now to be called the "Red Crescent" or the "Red Crystal?" This is one huge joke. The Red Cross hasn't had a penny from this family for a long, long time and they wont' get another penny from us in the future either. They are a lost cause.
Give blood to the Red Cross.
Give money elsewhere. (Me, I favor the Salvation Army.)
Still waiting for them to expel the Palestinians for using ambulances to move ammuntion, explosives, and armed fighters. . .
Hebrew slaves worked on the pyramids, should we also get rid of triangles?
"We're replacing the fine wine served in this restaurant with Magen David's Crystals. Will the patrons be able to tell the difference?"
Yes.
..........................................
The International Red Cross is different than the the American Red Cross.
"The American Red Cross has been campaigning for full Israeli membership for years. It has withheld six years' of payment owed to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies — totaling approximately $34 million — since May 2000 to protest the MDA's not being admitted."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1483668/posts
The MDA site designer got carried away by Flash.
I'm not all that sure I understand all of this but is the Red Cross in the protesting business or in the business of saving lives and give comfort to those in need. Either way we don't give to them. It's not the workers but the administraion of it all and therefore we don't give any money to them at all. Will never giv either. There are other ways.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Salvation Army is good. I remember growing up the Red Cross was really something to be involved in. My mother and the PTA used to wrap bandages for the Red Cross. I was proud of her doing that. I have lost respect for the Red Cross organization. How dare they take money people send in for a cause and then portion it out as they see fit?
Yes, I can understand your reasons.
I just want to make clear that whatever the faults of the American Red Cross they were not anti-Israel like the International and Red Crescent organizations.
There are many choices and it is always hard to figure out who best serves the cause you want to help. The easiest decision is when you are personally involved in the work of the org.
Well I never even thought of the Red Cross being anti anything. I know it is not the worker bees of the Red Cross or any other organization the problem always seems to come from the top from the money grabbers. However, that doesn't change it though...they still use the monies for what they want to use it for. But, we give mostly to St. Jude Cancer Research Hospital in Memphis, TN. It's a place we can go to see the children being helped, see the care they receive from caring staff and...see their research center and know where our money is going. It's an awesome place to visit and anyone who can I would say go there. You will be humbled by the courage,optimism and smiles of the children.
I have a couple of causes I know personally and that definitely is the best. My sister works for a place that helps abused children. I volunteer there as well.
But in the case of Katrina, I wanted to give and it is hard to know where and how.
Buy water and donate it somewhere locally where they will get it to them. Those kinds of things.
The United Way did the same thing. They filtered 9/11 donations into their anti-Second Amendment programs. I let them know, in writing, that they were written out of my last will after that.
Oh I know about the United Way already. That's another area of disrespect I have for an organization. It's always best to give DIRECTLY if you can to a single family or a couple families. At least you see someone getting good use out of what you donated.
Thanks. I'll look into that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.