It appears Israel has caved-in and has agreed to a compromise in order to be accepted into the International Red Cross. There will be created a neutral Red Crystal.
I don’t disagree with the idea of a compromise emblem for countries that don’t want the religious connotations entwined with a cross or a crescent. But I don’t feel Israel should be forced to use it.
Before anyone mentions it, I know that the Red Cross looks nothing like a Christian cross, and while the article linked to above says that no one knows for sure its origin, the suggestion given — that it is merely an inversion of the Swiss flag is convincing, since the Intl Red Cross was formed in Switzerland. (It almost seems laughable to suggest any other origin is more likely — Occam’s Razor.)
However, once the IRC allowed Muslim countries to use the Red Crescent, they admitted there could be confusion. They admitted countries with a majority non-Christian population might desire a different symbol. As I see it, there are only two fair compromises:
Red Cross, Red (any emblem a nation or group of nations deems appropriate to themselves), Red Crystal (for those times when a completely neutral emblem is needed)
Red Cross, and Red Crystal. Period, and nothing else.
Of course…everything that should happen doesn’t necessarily happen. And sometimes lopsided compromises are necessary to achieve desired ends.