It is about who a sniper can kill and who must be spared. It is about which building can legally be reduced to rubble and which is protected under law, which van can be blown up and which must be allowed to drive on. Since 1864, the symbol of the red cross has protected military and civilian medical services from being targeted in armed conflict, and since 1876, the red crescent has fulfilled the same function for medical services in Muslim countries. These symbols are also used to identify national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, their International Federation and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

In 2006, the delegates to the Sixth Committee adopted a resolution that took note of a new symbol that will stand alongside the red cross and red crescent: a red crystal. Although the red crystal was established at a diplomatic conference in Geneva, delegates in New York voiced their views on the matter at this year's General Assembly.

The three emblems/ICRC Image

"The crystal, crescent and cross all have the same meaning", Cristina Pellandini, deputy head of ICRC delegation to the United Nations, told the UN Chronicle. "Their purpose is to make combatants aware that those people, buildings, vehicles with the symbols are protected under the 1949 Geneva Conventions and should not be fired upon", she said.

The red cross was the result of the efforts of Henri Dunant, a Swiss citizen who was horrified by the misery of more than 45,000 abandoned, dead or wounded soldiers he witnessed in Solferino, Italy in 1859. The red cross on a white background, which represents the inverse of the Swiss flag, was recognized in the First Geneva Convention in 1864 with the aim to facilitate relief efforts for wounded combatants It was joined by the red crescent twelve years later-believing the cross to be offensive to Muslim soldiers, the Ottoman empire was the first to use the crescent from 1876 to 1878, as Turkey fought Russia. The red crescent was formally recognized in 1929.

At a diplomatic conference in 1949, Israel called for the use of the red star of David that was used by the Israeli armed forces' medical services. Fearing a proliferation of protective emblems, States at the Conference rejected this proposal. The debate about the emblem continued for 46 years, as a growing number of States recognized the need for additional emblem devoid of any national, political or religious connotation. In December 2005, Member States to the Geneva Conventions adopted the Third Protocol thereto, creating the red crystal symbol as a possibility for national relief societies unwilling or unable to use the red cross or red crescent. Ms. Pellandini said besides the relief society in Israel, others, such as the one in Eritrea (a country with significant Christian and Muslim communities), are also considering using the crystal for its medical services and national society as a neutral symbol.

Unfortunately the issue of the red crystal became highly politicized, with some States showing objections to its establishment, said Ms. Pellandini. Although many parties had hoped to adopt Protocol III to the Geneva Conventions by consensus, some Islamic States voted against its adoption while others abstained.

The 29th International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement Conference met in June 2006 to amend the statutes of the Movement to incorporate the new symbol. The Israeli National Society - Magen David Adom and the Palestinian Red Crescent Society were formally recognized and consequently admitted as full-fledged members of the International Movement. While the Magen David Adom had previously not been able to enter the Movement because it did not use the cross or the crescent, the Palestinian Red Crescent Society could not join because member societies must come from internationally recognized independent States. Prior to the December 2005 diplomatic conference, both organizations had signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on how both Societies would carry out their respective operations, particularly in the Autonomous and Occupied Palestinian Territories.

According to Jerzy Makarowski of the Permanent Mission of Sweden to the United Nations, who led the negotiation on the draft resolution, although the red crystal was a contentious issue, talks remained "productive, constructive and friendly". He said that the resolution contained a very neutral reference to Protocol III of 2005, simply noting in its preamble that it had been adopted, and that "a more positive reference would have been very difficult".

Namira Negm of the Egyptian Mission told the Chronicle that her country was concerned that the guidelines set in the MOU between the Magen David Adom and the Palestinian Red Crescent Society were not being respected, and that international humanitarian law was often violated in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. She said that although the resolution was adopted by consensus in the Sixth Committee, it only noted the adoption of the additional emblem, and did not express support for it.

For Daniel Meron, Director of the International Organizations and Human Rights Department of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the establishment of the red crystal represented "being able to join the club [the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement]". He also told the Chronicle that the Magen David Adom would now be able to participate in international relief efforts. Although he had been disappointed by the politicization of the red crystal issue at the conference in Geneva in June 2006, he said the adoption of the resolution at the United Nations was a welcome development to "get political backing" for the red crystal. Meirav Eilon Shahar of the Isreali Permanent Mission said that although bringing the additional emblem before the United Nations had no direct legal bearing on the issue, it represented an opportunity to "encourage countries to recognize the red crystal and ratify the third Protocol".