UK Parliament / Open data

Geneva Conventions and United Nations Personnel

My Lords, I indicate on behalf of Magen David Adom, which translates as ““red shield of David””, and of whose British friends I have the privilege of being president, that the Bill is warmly welcomed. The history of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent is magnificent in regard to the work it has done to help people injured in situations of war or many other situations. It is also possible to recognise Magen David Adom, with the shield of David painted very visibly on its ambulances, which it uses in the vicinity of the Gaza strip to remove injured people regardless of religion or race from situations of danger, at much risk to those operating the vehicles. That fact has perhaps not been noted by the media. It is to be hoped that the fact that in future they can take advantage of the red crystal—the Hebrew for which I do not know—will be of benefit. It might be asked, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, why we should have another symbol if existing symbols have acquired the reputation to which I have referred. The fact is that when the Israeli aid service could not appropriately use either the red cross or the red crescent, they used another symbol. After long negotiation, carried out in an amicable spirit between the authorities of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent, the formula was devised of avoiding the undesirable multiplication of symbols and substituting a clearly neutral symbol. Perhaps it is to be welcomed that the international services were able to achieve beneficial results in those circumstances.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

707 c195-6 

Session

2008-09

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords chamber
Back to top