http://antiwar.com/orig/pilger.php?articleid=2159


The Unmentionable Source of Terrorism
by John Pilger

The current threat of attacks in countries whose governments have close alliances with Washington is the latest stage in a long struggle against the empires of the west, their rapacious crusades and domination. The motivation of those who plant bombs in railway carriages derives directly from this truth. What is different today is that the weak have learned how to attack the strong, and the western crusaders' most recent colonial terrorism exposes "us" to retaliation.

The source of much of this danger is Israel. A creation, then guardian of the west's empire in the Middle East, the Zionist state remains the cause of more regional grievance and sheer terror than all the Muslim states combined. Read the melancholy Palestinian Monitor on the Internet; it chronicles the equivalent of Madrid's horror week after week, month after month, in occupied Palestine. No front pages in the West acknowledge this enduring bloodbath, let alone mourn its victims. Moreover, the Israeli army, a terrorist organisation by any reasonable measure, is protected and rewarded in the west.

In its current human rights report, the Foreign Office criticises Israel for its "worrying disregard for human rights" and "the impact that the continuing Israeli occupation and the associated military occupations have had on the lives of ordinary Palestinians."

Yet the Blair government has secretly authorised the sale of vast quantities of arms and terror equipment to Israel. These include leg-irons, electric shock belts and chemical and biological agents. No matter that Israel has defied more United Nations resolutions than any other state since the founding of the world body. Last October, the UN General Assembly voted by 144 to four to condemn the wall that Israel has cut through the heart of the West Bank, annexing the best agricultural land, including the aquifer system that provides most of the Palestinians' water. Israel, as usual, ignored the world.

Israel is the guard dog of America's plans for the Middle East. The former CIA analysts Kathleen and Bill Christison have described how "two strains of Jewish and Christian fundamentalism have dovetailed into an agenda for a vast imperial project to restructure the Middle East, all further reinforced by the happy coincidence of great oil resources up for grabs and a president and vice-president heavily invested in oil."

The "neoconservatives" who run the Bush regime all have close ties with the Likud government in Tel Aviv and the Zionist lobby groups in Washington. In 1997, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa) declared: "Jinsa has been working closely with Iraqi National Council leader Dr Ahmad Chalabi to promote Saddam Hussein's removal from office..." Chalabi is the CIA-backed stooge and convicted embezzler at present organising the next "democratic" government in Baghdad.

Until recently, a group of Zionists ran their own intelligence service inside the Pentagon. This was known as the Office of Special Plans, and was overseen by Douglas Feith, an under-secretary of defence, extreme Zionist and opponent of any negotiated peace with the Palestinians. It was the Office of Special Plans that supplied Downing Street with much of its scuttlebutt about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; more often than not, the original source was Israel.

Israel can also claim responsibility for the law passed by Congress that imposes sanctions on Syria and in effect threatens it with the same fate as Iraq unless it agrees to the demands of Tel Aviv. Israel is the guiding hand behind Bush's bellicose campaign against the "nuclear threat" posed by Iran. Today, in occupied Iraq, Israeli special forces are teaching the Americans how to "wall in" a hostile population, in the same way that Israel has walled in the Palestinians in pursuit of the Zionist dream of an apartheid state. The author David Hirst describes the "Israelisation of US foreign policy" as being "now operational as well as ideological."

In understanding Israel's enduring colonial role in the Middle East, it is too simple to see the outrages of Ariel Sharon as an aberrant version of a democracy that lost its way. The myths that abound in middle-class Jewish homes in Britain about Israel's heroic, noble birth have long been reinforced by a "liberal" or "left-wing" Zionism as virulent and essentially destructive as the Likud strain.

And a new commie play pal for Bixie, et al.

Welcome pravda.

Looks like you're making some righties nervous already.

Keep it up.

Good one.

And that would be lox, bee.
Welcome, pravda. You appear to be quite a wordsmith. Please teach davis grammar and syntax.

FOAD.

Probably is one playing one of their "games".

I think it was Pilger that is the wordsmith...too soon to tell.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp.../213816/1/.html

Arms transferred to Abbas with Israeli blessing: official





JERUSALEM : Arms were transferred with Israel's blessing to the forces loyal to Palestinian Authority president Mahmud Abbas, parliamentary foreign affairs committee chairman Tzahi Hanegbi said.

"By permitting the transfer of these arms last night, we applied a decision taken three weeks ago by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on a recommendation by the security authorities," Hanegbi told Israeli public radio.

According to the Yediot Aharonot daily, three trucks carrying 950 American M-16 automatic rifles crossed into the West Bank and Gaza from Jordan under Israeli military escort overnight Wednesday and early Thursday.

Some 400 were delivered to Abbas's presidential guard at Ramallah in the West Bank and the remainder went to the same force in Gaza, it said.

The weapons are to enable Abbas "to cope with Hamas", the hardline Islamist group that leads the Palestinian government, Olmert said at the British parliament in London on Tuesday.

His announcement followed a decision in principle by the Israeli authorities, revealed on May 25, to authorise the supply of light weapons to Abbas's 3,000-strong presidential guard, known as Force 17.

- AFP/ir

Yes, I've read this before. Some guy on the Aljazeera forum kept referring to it over and over in every subject tread as proof supporting his anti-Zionist, kill all the Israeli and their American puppet, views. That was before I got banned for probably being too insensitive to middle-eastern theological and political views which are about one and the same. That wasn't you was it? Just kidding.

My impression of Pilger is that's he’s one of the liberals’ answer to the various conservative journalist. A real poster boy for the left.

In an Australian Broadcasting Corporation interview he offered:

"I think if the US military machine and the Bush administration can suffer something like a defeat in Iraq, they can be stopped." No Anti-Bush agenda there.......not!

Full interview transcript here:

http://Pilger Interview on U.S. and Terrorism.

Banned? I'm SHOCKED. Jews were always pretty good to Dems and the left. The payback hasn't been too good. Israel being an ally of the US seems to have changed views quite a bit.

You say that like it's some kind of a bad thing to be "anti-Bush".

Israel perpetrating questionable practices and interfering directly with our foreign policy to our own detriment may have a little to do with it.

It coming from an Aussie does irk a little. I can take it better from an American lefty with a sincere, although in my opinion, wholly misguided, interest in our country’s welfare.

I agree that it's better if citizens keep to their own nations troubles(as much as possible:~)... unfortunately, US and our bUSh are the source of lots of other nations troubles...

Heh, I think that Israel should be at least a little bit concerned and apprehensive about our extreme support... which to a great degree stems from our "Christian" beliefs that Isreal mUSt be put on the chopping block in our oily Armageddon jUSt so that our God can return and destroy all the armies of the earth(which BTW, includes our own armies:~)...

Support from madmen is okay I reckon... but, ya gotta admit that it mUSt be at least jUSt a bit disconcerting.

Now, now. No need to get personal. (Rene's a tad sensitive. Be nice..)




If you mean on the part of "liberal" jews, you might have a point.

Do you read arabic?

et al,

Discussion Question: Will giving up land to the Palestians bring them peace?



(COMMENT)

As I said before, while A&C are valid diplomatic tools, each tool has a job that it is best suited to accomplish. While a screwdriver can be used as a chisel, it will not cut as well chisel and will ruin the blade screwdriver. So it is with A&C in this case. It is not the right tool for the job, and may be needed later for a job it is better suited to handle.

Israel is behind the power curve on the issues that really need attention in the Territories ("Ha-Shtachim"). The "spirit and intent" of international law, in this matter, is clear. I agree with Arturo_Vandelay in the context that the problem has dragged-on much too long. But sometimes, the history of the region gets in the way of progress (I know it does for me). The solutions in addressing “contemporary issues” are different from those we might have employed in previous decades.

Years ago, we might have suggested that Israel only occupy that territory that it could positively control in terms of law and order, government, and economic develop. It was not immediately obvious then, in the Territories, but we see this same mistake being repeated in Iraq by America; and now understand it much better. But until Iraq, I don't think that we understood the dynamics in play - and - tended to think that the situation in the Territories were unique; they are not. --- --- --- Currently, Israel does not have sufficient forces to properly occupy the Territories and to establish and maintain law and order, viable political subdivisions, or to build the infrastructure necessary to make the economy thrive as a going concern. Like Iraq, we tend to address these more contemporary issues as individual problems and not subsets of one-and-the-same eco-social system.

Most Respectfully,

How about we do that with the Arabs? That would leave them a few blocks in every capital, and some compounds where their foreign workers work and live.

I'm assuming that, by extending your observations, when America finally withdraws from Iraq; Israel will become a literal seafaring nation.

Rocco

A Q&D answer to your question would be: "Well it hasn't worked so far. See no reason it will in future."

But that doesn't do the question justice. The factors that compound and confound the answer involve both a lack of initial trust on both sides, an agenda that has little to do with having the deal work on both sides, and a decided lack of constructive intent (the placing of words into verifiable action) on both sides.

On the one hand you have the "Palestinians (more properly itinerant Arab tribes whose ancestry places them in the area now called Palestine for an internationally recognized geo-political referent)" whose innate goal is not peaceful co-existence with a State of Israel located in the same area, as evidenced by the numbers of armed conflicts in recent memory beginning with modern Israel's establishment; the inability to accept a compromise solution when offered (the Barak Gambit at Camp David) - a compromise that gave them far more than probably even Barak could have gotten from the Knesset, but that's still a part and parcel of the whole mess; an inability of any of their "governments - PLO, Fath, Hamas, etc." to truly govern these fractious tribes - ask the rest of the Arab world why they won't take their "brothers" in, "troublemakers" is probably the kindest word you'll get in response, but lip service to their plight pays off in other geo-political fora; and the beat goes on.

On the other hand, you have Israel. Placed in the area of "Palestine" as a guilt offering for WWII, also for historical reasons, they too, have never completely bought into the idea of co-existence. A case can easily be made for "Why should we?" on their part. The numerous wars, the Intifada, the hot/cold relationship with their one ally, an inability to follow-through on agreements made in a consistent manner - both external pressures from the Arabs, "Palestinian" and others, and internal fractiousness amongst Jewish Israel as well - leading to adversary lack of trust in their word, and the entire symbolic issue of Jerusalem, with its Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa Mosque flashpoint that neither "side" will budge on.

The Occupied Territories were taken in 1967's Six-Day War to gain defensible borders, the old Israel State borders were an invitation to invasion. The military soundness of that goal was amply shown in the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Politically, it has been disastrous. Now, even if a return to the status quo ante bellum of May 1967 could even be done it would not be enough to satisfy the Arab side. And it would not sit at all well with the Israeli side, as it would seem simply to invite one more Yom Kippur War, and this one without a militarily significant "buffer." Tantamount to suicide, they'd say.

[Break, Break]

Now as to the subject of Appeasement and Compromise as "diplomatic tools."

Appeasement, when no other option is survivable, may be the only "compromise" solution a state has and at least survive the day. While I think Sir Neville Chamberlain was a craven, in that I do not believe that the Munich Agreement was the only choice the United Kingdom had that was survivable, I think a case could legitimately be made that in his mind he had no other choice, he having not thought his geopolitics and military situation through in a rational manner. Would Hitler's Germany have gone to war at that point if balked? Unknown. It would not have been at a time or place of their choosing, as was done later with Poland. Was the UK in a position to fight a war of survival, should it come to that, at that point in time? Probably, given that they would be defending their own shores and not expeditionary, and that Germany would have had to go through Europe to get to them. Recall that even after Germany had "gone through Europe" and were in a position to strike in such a manner with a military far stronger than that which they possessed during Munich- they never seriously tried. Other things and situations obtained to mitigate against it, agreed, but at the time the UK's own situation, had war been declared on them, was more perilous than in Sept 1939 when war was joined. Of such are the popular fiction books of "alternative history" made. (" If this, what then follows?" ) But was it sufficiently perilous that appeasement was the only acceptable compromise other than war? What the appeasement did do was give the UK some breathing space to continue a build-up to a war footing, which I believe even a less-than-brilliant-bulb like Chamberlain could see was needed. But then he pulls that bone-head "Peace In Our Time" stunt. Foolish and foppish.

Compromise, on the other hand, when the situation is not untenable should war be enjoined, is indeed a fine diplomatic tool. Compromise, for its own sake, when a nation's survival is at stake, however, may not be the best choice - even if diplomatic. Depends on the stakes and the alternatives. Appeasement, when other compromise is available, or when one's survival is not on the table - is simply craven - an easy way out that will lead to future ruin.

Of course as always, YMMV.

You asked for discussion after all.

Appeasement from a position of strength might as well be capitulation. I can understand it when no other option exists, otherwise I can't think of many situations where it's a useful tool.

Israel has little reason to compromise, much less appease. They bought and paid for much of their country, got more thanks to the same people that "gave" Arabs rights to land, and won even more fighting Arabs from a disadvantage.

Sans Israeli compromise there might be an Israeli army in CAIRO today. I don't see a lot of willingness to compromise on the Arab side.

'Russ Logan,' et al,

Yes, you're right. I asked for a discussion.

QUOTE(Russ Logan @ Jun 18 2006, 05:09 PM) [snapback]214092[/snapback]

But that doesn't do the question justice. The factors that compound and confound the answer involve both a lack of initial trust on both sides, an agenda that has little to do with having the deal work on both sides, and a decided lack of constructive intent (the placing of words into verifiable action) on both sides.

(COMMENT)

Yes, to an extent, I agree. Actions that demonstrate intent are an issue, to be sure.

QUOTE(Russ Logan @ Jun 18 2006, 05:09 PM) [snapback]214092[/snapback]

On the one hand you have the "Palestinians (more properly itinerant Arab tribes whose ancestry places them in the area now called Palestine for an internationally recognized geo-political referent)" whose innate goal is not peaceful co-existence with a State of Israel located in the same area, as evidenced by the numbers of armed conflicts in recent memory beginning with modern Israel's establishment; the inability to accept a compromise solution when offered (the Barak Gambit at Camp David) - a compromise that gave them far more than probably even Barak could have gotten from the Knesset, but that's still a part and parcel of the whole mess; an inability of any of their "governments - PLO, Fath, Hamas, etc." to truly govern these fractious tribes - ask the rest of the Arab world why they won't take their "brothers" in, "troublemakers" is probably the kindest word you'll get in response, but lip service to their plight pays off in other geo-political fora; and the beat goes on.

(COMMENT)

There are actually three issues here that I would like to address.

• The first is the issue of "peaceful co-existence with a State of Israel." Yasser Arafat left a paradox as a legacy. The generic Palestinian people believe that Israel is a nation built upon the lands of ancient Palestinians, and that Israel’s right to exist is in their hands and at their discretion. That the peaceful co-existence between Israelis and Palestinians rests upon the acceptance of the Israeli reconciliation by the Palestinians. But as the Palestinians do not speak with one voice and have no central control, it is unlikely the true intentions can be demonstrated by all the factions at once.
  
• The second is the "inability of any of their governments - PLO, Fath, Hamas, etc. to truly govern" in the name of the Palestinians. This is a by-product of the terrorist legacy that each of the potential parties holds. It is only through the international recognition of one group, or another, that the Palestinians will be able to obtain the necessary economic and monetary support. If the US supports Mohammed Abbas, and acquires international recognitions, this will create two dilemma:
  • HAMAS, which is the duly elected government by the Palestinian People, will be seen by the greater Arab community as having been subject to regime change.
  • The Palestinian Authority, another terrorist group, will be seen as supported by the Administration and subject to the Palestine Anti-Terrorism Act (which I see as another mistake in diplomacy).
• The third is the question of why the "Arab world won't take their "brothers" in." The Arab world still hold the opinion that the displaced Palestinians were the victim of misappropriation of the territories which are rightfully Palestinian. If an Arab wide effort was undertaken by the adjacent Arab countries to accept and assimilate the displaced Palestinians, it would create another economically deprived social strata composed of Palestinians. With the emegance of Muslim fundamentalism and its mutation to a Jihadist movement, that would create an additional internal security problem. It is better, in the eyes of the Arab Kingdoms, the Emirs, and semi-democratic states, that Jihadist fight the Israelis rather than create disturbances in relatively peaceful surrounding states.

QUOTE(Russ Logan @ Jun 18 2006, 05:09 PM) [snapback]214092[/snapback]

On the other hand, you have Israel. Placed in the area of "Palestine" as a guilt offering for WWII, also for historical reasons, they too, have never completely bought into the idea of co-existence. A case can easily be made for "Why should we?" on their part. The numerous wars, the Intifada, the hot/cold relationship with their one ally, an inability to follow-through on agreements made in a consistent manner - both external pressures from the Arabs, "Palestinian" and others, and internal fractiousness amongst Jewish Israel as well - leading to adversary lack of trust in their word, and the entire symbolic issue of Jerusalem, with its Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa Mosque flashpoint that neither "side" will budge on.

(COMMENT)

Again, this is a historical view which argues to establish who was right - to do what and assign territories. Yes, there "was" an argument to be made in 1948. But that was more than a half century ago. It is now time to deal with what we have. Israel is a viable country which poses no immediate threat to the adjacent neighbors.

Jerusalem is a separate issue, in that it was never part of Israel in contemporary times, and rightfully belongs to the West Bank, more properly Jordan. Peace should not be retarded because of a religous belief that the Israelis have a right to - or - ownership of Zion.

QUOTE(Russ Logan @ Jun 18 2006, 05:09 PM) [snapback]214092[/snapback]

Appeasement, ... ... ... But was it sufficiently perilous that appeasement was the only acceptable compromise other than war? What the appeasement did do was give the UK some breathing space to continue a build-up to a war footing, which I believe even a less-than-brilliant-bulb like Chamberlain could see was needed. But then he pulls that bone-head "Peace In Our Time" stunt. Foolish and foppish.

Compromise, on the other hand, when the situation is not untenable should war be enjoined, is indeed a fine diplomatic tool. Compromise, for its own sake, when a nation's survival is at stake, however, may not be the best choice - even if diplomatic. Depends on the stakes and the alternatives. Appeasement, when other compromise is available, or when one's survival is not on the table - is simply craven - an easy way out that will lead to future ruin.

(COMMENT)

It depends. While I agree in general, any diplomatic alternative my lead to war. Appeasement, does not always lead to war, but is as risky as any other diplomatic approach; and is justified if the benefits are significant - or - the outcome is essential for survival.

Most Respectfully,

The Pals are not the only barrier to peace efforts in the conflict:

Israeli terrorists?

Sure. Many of their heroes, and governmental figures, are/were graduates of

Haganah

Irgun Zvai-Leumi

The Stern Gang

so why be surprised if the "Palestinian" Arabs chose folks from the PLO, Hamas, Black September, etc. as their opposite numbers. "Eye for an eye" is after all in both their "Holy Books", not countered by further revelation.

Piercing glance into the obvious.

A little progress maybe?

Maybe just more tawquilla? (sp)

More probably Hamas has discovered the awful truth - that actually being in the "Worry Seat" of having to govern a nation (even such a "nation" as "Palestine" is) takes real and reality-based thinking, not simple rhetoric and bomb-throwing. Couple that with the grinding poverty and paucity (in terms of resources and capabilities) that is "Palestine", and they can no longer afford to play the "Freedom Fighter" Card - it pays no bills and buys no food. If they wish to remain relevant and, more importantly in political power, they must find a way around the international sanctions (read "no money coming in") brought about by their dark and anti-social past (rightfully so) to ensure the viability of this "Palestine" they now govern. They ante'd up, they now must play the hand if they wish to take the pot.

Or so it seems to me.

Those were my thouhgts when Hamas won the election. Now they have to address reality, not just rhetoric.

I think most of us were thinking that and said so. But democracy keeps getting a bad rap anyway. Democracy is the best hope to force even the worst elected government to find real solutions. (and Hamas might not even have been the worst choice)

Yep. Despite its terrorist arm, Hamas enjoys considerable support due to it providing social services to the Pals. It may be the closest thing to a real government they have had.

Fatah is not the Jewish Welcome Wagon either.

I get a little tired of the political position that there's always a perfect action (or in many cases inaction) for everything. Sometimes there are only bad choices and worse ones. I guess the current non-divided government has given us nothing but everything's right, or everything's wrong, and as someone who considers himself an AMERICAN FIRST AND FOREMOST I get a little tired of people who do nothing but question US intentions and actions without fail.

I didn't question every US action when Clinton was president, especially those on foreign soil.

Unfortunately you have to do that with group of war mongers we have in the White House now. They don't need much of an excuse for anything.

I feel the same way. The argument I most abhor is that the Iraq war was launched fror politcal purposes. What a load of BS.

I've been a Bush critic since the 2000 primaries, but the one thing I will say about him is he does what he thinks is right. Sometimes I vehemently disagree, but never because I think he's just acting on a poll or for votes. The easy way to handle terror would have been to obliterate the Taliban, play the hero of Afghanistan, then come home to wait for the next attack. Attempting to change the world in the long run is rarely the way to get credit. We won't know how this comes out for years or decades. And that would have been true regardless of Bush's actions. The Islamic nuts are in it for the long haul.

The crap about "open ended war" is only true because of the enemy we face, not due to any choice of ours.

I disagree, I've never seen a politician pander as much as Bush does.

Flag Burning, Gay Marriage, trrrrrrrrr.

It's been a total nighmare having a corporate whore intent on destroying the last of the New Deal as the head of the government.

It's a complete disaster.

Of course Bush thinks he's doing the right thing. All presidents do. The difference with Bush is he's doing the right thing for a very small segment of America.

A load of BS is right. Those Republican SOBs knew what a war would do to this country. They attacked everyone as a traitor. It was a POLITICAL CALCULATION. I'd bet my bottom dollar on it.


I suppose you don't think Pubes used 9/11 for a political tool for their coup either?



That's a load of sheit artie. As long as that ass hole can say "I'm a war president" he can get away with anyhing he wants, legal or not. He uses this war as a shield.

That piece of sheit and his party are also using the open-ended war excuse to steal whatever freedoms stand in his way of total dominance of this country by him and a few other silver-spooned chickenhawk bastards.




He's a uniter, bee. JT'll give ya the wink, he united Republicans so they could rape the country.

You gotta make up your mind one of these days as to whether we do or ought to give a poopy about how our CHOICES make/remake or unmake friends and enemies around the world.

The 'enemy we face' is the enemy we face (to the extent that we do, actually) precisely because of the choices we have made.

The argument about "open-ended war" is not crap, at all. It perfectly describes not only reality, but the wishes of the fascist-leaning fraction of the Republican and Democratic parties.

The moron himself (or one of his wordsmiths) named it "the long war" and said that it could last decades.

How ya doin' nom?

Hey bud. I guess this is the 'family-intensive' part of the trip. Hint hint . . .

Oh well, and it's been unseasonably hot.

Still . . . it could be a LOT worse.

:-)

I'm sorry you were banned. It's not helpful to ignore other views. I'm not averse to Jews, but they are no more chosen people than anyone else. Believing they deserve whatever land they choose because god wants it that way is like believing in faery tales.

Whether one considers them a chosen people or not might depend upon his religious persuasion.

My new religion deems that I am the chosen people. Maybe the UN will give me a state wherever I deem to be my holy land.

Back it up with a little prophecy and I'm sure they will consider it.

I think you underestimate the amount of Americans that agree with some of Bush's policies, especially when put up against a left-wing that has taken over the Democrat party.

Yep. Away from my former major tormentors, too.

To future major tormentors. You can run, but you can't hide.

In my fantasy world, the Jews were welcomed here in the US after the war, and everything worked out just fine. Unfortunately, I don't think that would have done it, Next year in Jerusalem, and all that.

Israel admitted to Red Cross

Agreement reached on optional new emblem



Thursday, June 22, 2006; Posted: 1:29 a.m. EDT (05:29 GMT)

-- The Red Cross has admitted Israel to the worldwide humanitarian organization early Thursday, ending decades of exclusion linked to the Jewish state's refusal to accept the traditional cross symbol.

The approval came in the early hours Thursday following a two-day International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent.

With a round of applause the Red Cross federation admitted Israel's Magen David Adom society simultaneously with the Palestine Red Crescent.

An optional new emblem was adopted so that Israel could retain its red star of David instead of having to adopt the red cross or crescent used by the 184 other societies in the global movement.

"This has been going on for 58 long years. It's time. It's overdue," said Bonnie McElveen Hunter, chairman of the American Red Cross, which had been campaigning for years for the Israeli society's admission.

Israeli Ambassador Itzhak Levanon said the International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent had earlier rejected a Muslim amendment that would have challenged Israel's occupation of Arab territory since the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. The vote was 72 votes for the amendment and 191 against, he said.

Then the conference passed by a 237-54 vote a resolution setting up the legal basis for Israelis' admission and making an exception to the rule that societies have to be under a sovereign state so that the Palestinians could join as well.

Magen David Adom has sought membership in the Red Cross movement since the 1930s -- even before Israel became a state -- but has been barred from entry because it objects to using the traditional symbols of the movement to identify its medical and humanitarian workers.

The decision early Thursday completed a complicated process that included the creation of the optional, third emblem -- a blank, red-bordered square standing on one corner -- that could stand alone or frame the Israeli society's red star.

The emblem -- dubbed the "red crystal" -- was approved over Muslim objections in a hard-fought diplomatic conference last December. But that was only the first step, and the conference was called to complete the job.

Conference organizers said their aim was to make the movement universal.

The simple red cross on a white background -- the reversal of colors of the Swiss flag -- was adopted as the emblem of the movement when it was founded in 1863 by Swiss humanitarians trying to care for battlefield casualties who otherwise were left to suffer.

But the symbol unintentionally reminded Muslims of the Christian Crusaders, and they insisted on their own red crescent in the 19th century.

When Israel's society bid for membership was turned down in 1949, it objected to using either the cross or the crescent, and the Red Cross movement refused to admit yet another emblem.

The society and its friends have been campaigning for years to find a way out of the stalemate, and the new emblem was designed primarily to meet Israel's objections. Magen David Adom can combine it with the red star to create a new logo.

Israel's military will be able to use the crystal by itself on a white flag to protect medics and other humanitarian workers helping war casualties.

But any society could combine the emblem with the cross or crescent -- or both -- for temporary use.Source

Just call it the Red Plus and be done with it.

Sharpest tack in the tent. ROFL:-)>