NYT cheerleading for shunning Jewish symbol

The New York Times, cheerleader of all international organizations (such as the UN, but not NATO) heaps praise on the International Red Cross — for an action many others see as blatantly anti—Semitic. The International Red Cross finally succumbed to pressure from the American Red Cross to take the first steps to accept Israel's medical service,  Magen David Adom , as a member.

However, the devil is in the details. The Israelis will not be allowed to use the Star of David as an emblem because it would apparently offend member states (one can guess which members would be offended). They will be compelled to use a diamond (one can speculate why the Israelis would accept a symbol that has some anti—Semitic overtones since Jews have long been associated with diamond dealing. But they crave some measure of international acceptance, no matter how grudging and degrading).

This is couched in the language of not accepting religious symbols, even though the Red Cross symbol itself is ultimately derived from the Christian Cross and the Red Crescent used by Arab medical services is likewise derived from Islamic religious iconography.

This dual treatment is praised by the Times, but the Wall Street Journal   and the New York Sun, among others, see it for what it is: inherently anti—Semitic. The Sun called their editorial on the issue "The Hate that Endures".  The Wall Street Journal poignantly notes "that it is a disgrace that the Star of David, which symbolized the faith that spawned both Christianity and Islam, is excluded." The Times not only is blind to anti—Semitism but plasters a happy face on it.
 
Ed Lasky  12 09 05

The New York Times, cheerleader of all international organizations (such as the UN, but not NATO) heaps praise on the International Red Cross — for an action many others see as blatantly anti—Semitic. The International Red Cross finally succumbed to pressure from the American Red Cross to take the first steps to accept Israel's medical service,  Magen David Adom , as a member.

However, the devil is in the details. The Israelis will not be allowed to use the Star of David as an emblem because it would apparently offend member states (one can guess which members would be offended). They will be compelled to use a diamond (one can speculate why the Israelis would accept a symbol that has some anti—Semitic overtones since Jews have long been associated with diamond dealing. But they crave some measure of international acceptance, no matter how grudging and degrading).

This is couched in the language of not accepting religious symbols, even though the Red Cross symbol itself is ultimately derived from the Christian Cross and the Red Crescent used by Arab medical services is likewise derived from Islamic religious iconography.

This dual treatment is praised by the Times, but the Wall Street Journal   and the New York Sun, among others, see it for what it is: inherently anti—Semitic. The Sun called their editorial on the issue "The Hate that Endures".  The Wall Street Journal poignantly notes "that it is a disgrace that the Star of David, which symbolized the faith that spawned both Christianity and Islam, is excluded." The Times not only is blind to anti—Semitism but plasters a happy face on it.
 
Ed Lasky  12 09 05