Tuesday, February 6, 2007

When is compromise too much?

I kept meaning to post this article, but I kept not doing it. It frustrates me, and I'll point out the points of the article that are particularly infuriating. The topic: The Red Cross-Red Crescent's adoption of the Red Diamond to include Israel's Magen David Adom Society (MDA). MDA used to use the Magen David, of course, but the international society refused to accept it as their symbol. There were some discussions on a forum I frequent, and some points were made that I found pretty ridiculous. First, some things from the article:
"The problem is, the star of David is primarily Israel's national symbol, rather than an emblem of humanitarian relief."
Now, this is a BBC article. I'm sort of shocked at this because the Red Crescent is clearly a symbol of Islamic/Muslim society. The crescent first appeared during the Ottoman Empire because one of the officials thought using the Red Cross would alienate the Muslim soldiers. Thus, the Red Crescent was born. Now, explain to me how that is an emblem of humanitarian relief? How does that validate the symbol any more than using the star of David? We can use the red CROSS and red CRESCENT but not the red STAR. I'm frustrated and irritated.

A friend on the forum suggested that Israel should strive to use a symbol that doesn't not INCITE violence, and instead is neutral. Because, you know, seeing the star of David incites violence, yet the crescent in no way has any implications? What an argument.
"Arab states have made it clear they will never accept the red star being recognised under the Geneva Conventions."
And thus the red diamond was accepted. How is this right? Fair? Yes, it's a compromise and probably not a battle worth enveloping ourselves in, but it seems so unjust. It's hypocritical and ridiculous. Again, it's a compromise. A compromise to ease the minds of everyone else.