They hate the Star of David

From the Times of Israel:

A number of pro-Palestinian organizations have petitioned the International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent to expel Israel’s national emergency medical service for using the emblem of the international federation on its ambulances operating in West Bank.

The Palestinian groups charge that Magen David Adom — the country’s medical, disaster, ambulance and blood bank service — is in violation of a Geneva Convention protocol stipulating Israeli paramedic teams use a neutral emblem while working outside the country, the Yedioth Aharonoth daily newspaper reported Sunday.

The background is important. The MDA only became a full (ha!) part of the ICRC in 2006, after surrendering its principles agreeing to abide by a protocol adopted by Geneva Convention signatories the year before.

The protocol introduced a neutral “red crystal” emblem to be used by any relief teams in areas where there is sensitivity about Christian or Muslim symbols.

They should never have signed the protocol. It was wrong, wrong, wrong. And now it has come back to bite them.

Here’s the graphic from the TOI site:


On the right – OK for use “in Israel.” On the left, for use “outside Israel.”

If we ignore the protocol, we see what the protest is about. They hate the Star of David. It is not the Israeli flag, but the worldwide symbol associated with Jews. They hate the Star of David. It offends them.

It’s OK for Israel to (rightly) tolerate the cross and the crescent, but they cannot tolerate the Star of David – even when doing humanitarian work!

The MDA may have given them cover for their hatred (by signing the damned protocol) but those with an objective and independent mind will surely recognize that what is being displayed here is naked Jew hate.

And the world snores on.

ICRC feeling the pinch?

Mr Schaerer (“head of delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Israel and occupied territories”) has been trying to tell people about why the ICRC takes the position it does on the question of Israel and Judea and Samaria. You can read his piece in the Jerusalem Posthere.

The problem for Mr Schaerer and the ICRC is that he is demonstrably wrong. (See the Elder of Ziyon’s coverage, here.) So my question is, why does he write what he does? Is he stupid? Is he the mouthpiece for somebody else’s garbage? Is he politically motivated, knowing what the truth is, but wanting to mislead? What makes him and the ICRC so anti-Israel?

And why has Schaerer given the JP that piece to publish? Did he feel under pressure to respond to the criticism vented in the direction of the ICRC? If so, his piece is inadequate. But maybe he or his cronies are so blinded they just cannot see the truth.

This extract from one of the Jerusalem Post comments (first seen at the Elder of Ziyon’s coverage) is damn fine and on point:

In all these cases, the facts on the ground certainly proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the territories in question are under occupation. Additionally, all these territories were acquired through wars of aggression, making them illegal, whereas Israel’s occupation of the West Bank was the result of a defensive war, which makes it lawful. And yet it is on Israel that the ICRC keeps picking mercilessly, the only case of lawful occupation, while ignoring all the illegal ones! Could it be that the ICRC is scared to offend the culprits in all these other cases, whereas it knows it has nothing to fear from Israel in terms of retaliation? If not, how come the ICRC doesn’t have extensive delegations of expatriates and local employees (as it does in Israel where they criss-cross the country taking care of every need of the Palestinians) in Tibet, Northern Cyprus and the Western Sahara? This is the core of the problem the ICRC faces when it keeps accusing Israel of something it is not guilty of while ignoring the countries who are really guilty of the offenses it accuses Israel of: by accepting to apply a double standard against Israel alone, the ICRC has shed much of its credibility as a so-called neutral agency. International law applies equally to all nations, or it applies to none, but it can’t be applied to just a few and ignored by the rest.

Is the ICRC feeling the pinch? If Mr Schaerer quits his job because of the heat, and his inability to respond properly to the situation, maybe I should put myself up for it. After all, it’s clear on the basis of his latest piece that I have a far better understanding of International law than he does. Maybe he thinks you don’t actually need to read the sources?

[PS: notice the man’s job title is “head of delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Israel and occupied territories”. Did anyone ever think that was a bit judgmental, for a supposedly neutral organization?]

What drives the ICRC?

What motivates the ICRC?

This is their mission statement:

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is an impartial, neutral and independent organization whose exclusively humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of armed conflict and other situations of violence and to provide them with assistance.

The ICRC also endeavours to prevent suffering by promoting and strengthening humanitarian law and universal humanitarian principles.

Established in 1863, the ICRC is at the origin of the Geneva Conventions and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. It directs and coordinates the international activities conducted by the Movement in armed conflicts and other situations of violence.

In following that mission statement, the ICRC are active in the Middle East. But the lofty words there are not matched by their political posturing. Their organization is riven with hate for Israel and its Star of David symbol, and outright bias and prejudice. (See here and here.) And their fixation on the Jewish State is reflected in their apparent continuing dishonesty.

The only things that can be clearly demonstrated are that the ICRC is using a harsher standard against Jewish state than it has used against any other country in recorded history, that its anti-Israel standard has no basis in international law as it is currently understood and applied, and that ICRC employees advocate the ICRC’s anti-Israel position by means of falsehoods and disingenuous argumentation. Until an ICRC employee is willing to be more forthcoming, the reasons for the ICRC’s bias against the world’s only Jewish state will remain a mystery.

The latter exposure comes from this highly significant expose by the inimitable Elder of Ziyon. Read it all (here) and see how a supposed international, respected body just cannot see straight when it comes to Israel.

So, what drives the ICRC? In my opinion, based on the available evidence, when it comes to Israel the answer is not one they should be proud of.