Ten months ago Natan-Zada, an Israeli soldier, took a bus to Shfa Ammr, an Arab town inside Israel. Once on board, he killed four passenger before seven other passengers overpowered him and killed him. These seven passengers are now in custody in Israeli Jail, while still charges have not been filed, I assume they will be charged with murder- nothing less.
But hey, doesn't Israel have "the right to defend itself"? Of course it does, that's not the question, the question is: does anyone else have that right? oh Yes, the US, against those bastards who were preparing chemical weapons in Iraq three years ago. And, ah, yes China, against the Falun Gung, and the Tibetans, both a threat to national security. The UK as well, has the right to keep a nuclear deterrent, although at a time when we all know it is useless.
So the proper conclusion is... you would have the right to defend yourself, if you were strong enough to earn that right.
Tough luck to the seven chaps from Shfa Ammr.
Did Anyone see how that guy was killed next to my house? I don't want to be too graphic, I didn't see the footage myself but let me tell you both what I know and what I heard.
Few hours after Israel was admitted to the "New Red Cross" (or is it Red Diamond now?) I went to sleep. A couple of hours later, I wake up not knowing that the shots that woke up were actually the same one which took that guys' life. Yes he was a combatant, he was shooting at the soldiers, with a hand gun, so it is only normal that he expects to get killed. What is not normal are two things, both a violation to the First Geneva Convention. First, Once the guy was shot down, injured (thus he falls under the protected persons category) , and ran out of bullets (again protected persons since he is no longer at that moment involved in the fighting- although this is arguable), an Israeli soldier approached the guy and emptied his magazine in the man's body. Not only that, But for an hour, I heard, they prevented the Palestinian Red Crescent Ambulance (which was admitted to the new organisation that same day as well), from delivering medical aid to him.
And I thought people should try to make a good impression on their first day on the job!

Two notes are required here. First, I did not support that Magen David Adom (the Red Star of David) was not allowed on board of the ICRC because it did not carry a recognised symbol. Second, I would have supported if MDA was barred entry to ICRC so long as its "national" government stayed in breach of the treaties that govern ICRC.

On the first of these notes, not admitting MDA is an indication of the use of religious symbols- certain religions allowed, others are not, even though in non Christian countries like SriLanka or Thailand, I have seen the red cross used as a symbol for medical treatment services. So the Diamond is good. It is a step towards secularisation of the organisation fits well with its impartiality stance. Maybe organisations should be required to disuse the previous emblems for their cultural/religious connotations and adopt the new one. After all, we only had two emblems thus far because the Ottoman Empire refused to use the red cross in 1864 (rightly, for how could they justify such use of a Christian symbol amongst a Muslim society), and insisted that they have already been using the red crescent for the same purpose (which I doubt is true since this is a very unlikely coincedence).

No comments: