Druze teen faces jail over refusing to serve in Israeli army

[SherriMunnerlyn]

The thread is about a Druze Israeli who lives in the Galilee.

He suffers discrimination living in the Galilee.

 

[Lipush]

The thread is about a Druze Israeli who lives in the Galilee.

He suffers discrimination living in the Galilee.

How did he suffer descrimination, by being sent to Jail?

 

[Kondor3]

The thread is about a Druze Israeli who lives in the Galilee.

He suffers discrimination living in the Galilee.

Good.

Maybe he needs to live in Jordan, instead.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

The thread is about a Druze Israeli who lives in the Galilee.

He suffers discrimination living in the Galilee.

Good.

Maybe he needs to live in Jordan, instead.

Why don't you live in Jordan?

You belong there as much as he does.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

A doctor in the Galilee writes about discrimination against Arab Israelis in the Galilee.

A Doctor in Galilee: The Life and Struggle of a Palestinian in Israel

"Hatim Kanaaneh is a Palestinian doctor who has struggled for over 35 years to bring medical care to Palestinians in Galilee, against a culture of anti-Arab discrimination. "

His book is the story of how he fought for the human rights of his patients and overcame the Israeli authorities' cruel indifference to their suffering.

Kanaaneh is a native of Galilee, and he was born before the creation of Israel.

Kanaaneh left the Galilee to study medicine at Harvard, and returned to work as a public health physician with the intention of helping his own people.

Kanaaneh discovered a shocking level of disease and malnutrition in his community in the Galilee.

He also discovered a shameful lack of support from the Israeli authorities.

"After doing all he could for his patients by working from inside the system, Kanaaneh set up The Galilee Society, an NGO working for equitable health, environmental and socio-economic conditions for Palestinian Arabs in Israel. This is a brilliant memoir that shows how grass roots organisations can loosen the Zionist grip upon Palestinian lives."

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0745327869/ref=mw_dp_mdsc?dsc=1]A Doctor in Galilee: The Life and Struggle of a Palestinian in Israel:Amazon:Books[/ame]

 

[Kondor3]

Israel releases conscientious objector Natan Blanc from prison after nearly six months

Blanc, who was protesting the occupation, now seeks to do national service at the Magen David Adom rescue service.

By Gili Cohen | Jun. 4, 2013 | 1:17 PM - Haaretz - Israel

Natan Blanc, with his father, after his release from military prison on June 4, 2013. Photo by Rami Shalosh

Conscientious objector Natan Blanc was released from military prison Tuesday after spending five and a half months behind bars for refusing to serve in the Israel Defense Forces because of the occupation.

Last week, the IDF had declared Blanc unfit for duty and said it was about to release him.

Blanc, 20, has consistently defined himself as a conscientious objector and has refused to be released from the IDF on psychological grounds. He was sentenced 10 times for a total of 178 days and was let out eight days early.

During Blanc's time in prison, human rights groups lobbied for his release. Last month several dozen people from academia sent a letter to Military Advocate General Danny Efroni calling for his release on the grounds that he was exercising his right to freedom of conscience.

Blanc intends to apply to the Magen David Adom rescue service to do two years of national service.

Four activists from the Yesh Gvul draft-resistance movement came to Military Prison 6 on Tuesday to congratulate Blanc on his release. “We're glad that the IDF, even though it had to be pressured politically, understood that there's no point in remaining angry at someone because he isn’t going to serve,” said an activist in the movement, Yishai Menuhin.

...

Israel releases conscientious objector Natan Blanc from prison after nearly six months - National Israel News | Haaretz

With supplemental articles available widely on the Internet, such as...

Natan Blanc Granted Release From Israeli Prison After Conscientious Objector Refused To Serve In Army

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/20/world/middleeast/a-conscientious-objector-poses-a-challenge-to-the-israeli-military.html?_r=0

Israel jails conscientious objector Natan Blanc for tenth time | World news | theguardian.com

========================================

Well, well, well... what do we have here?

Looks to me like the Israeli Government is hard on Conscientious Objectors, even if they're Jews, never mind Druze or Muslim or atheist or whatever.

The so-called 'discrimination' directed toward the Druze mentioned in the OP seems to be more about behaviors towards Draft Dodgers than it does anything to do with one's ethnicity or tribe or religious 'confession' or residence.

If you're an Israeli citizen of a certain age, you're expected to fulfill your National Service time.

Fail to fulfill that National Service Time and you're in trouble.

Doesn't matter if you're a Druze... or a mainstream Muslim... or a Christian... or a Jew... or an atheist or an agnostic or whatever.

Any American old enough to remember the era before they closed-down The Draft here in the US (active Selection Service choosing for 2-year compulsory terms of military service) will remember that we were none-too-kind to our OWN Conscientious Objectors and Draft Dodgers (a pejorative term in its own right) and the like - many of whom were obliged to flee to Canada for some years, to avoid imprisonment, until they received a Presidential Amnesty from Jimmah Abdul Carter on January 21, 1977 - his first day in office.

The US has never looked kindly upon Draft Dodgers ( Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam War timeframes ) and has even made it difficult to qualify as a Conscientious Objector, as have a great many other countries over time, when some percentage of their young people try to avoid their own country's version of Compulsory National Service - in the armed forces, or otherwise.

None of that is terribly surprising nor unusual in a country with a Compulsory Service component to its national service strategy. It's just been a while since that's been on OUR scopes (the US transitioned to an All-Volunteer Force in the middle 1970s).

So, until we can demonstrate that the Israeli Government is more harsh with Druze Draft Dodgers than it clearly is with Jewish Draft Dodgers, well...

I'm not so sure that the underlying charge of 'discrimination' against the Druze kid (with the strong implication being that it is because he is a Druze Palestinian) has much merit...

Looks more like a False Alarm here than anything else...

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

I am addressing the story of what is happening right now to one Israeli Druze young man.

His story is only now just unfolding.

So, it presently is not even possible to compare his story to the story of others.

We have no idea how long this young man will be ultimately detained or how he will be treated as a prisoner.

His story has a right to be told, no matter how much Zionists here want to bury it.

 

[Lipush]

His story is nothing special.

A friend of mine was sent into lock up for ditching the army. I know of 3 more.

"right to be told"? of course, why not.

Something overly exciting? hardly.

 

[Kondor3]

His story is nothing special.

A friend of mine was sent into lock up for ditching the army. I know of 3 more.

"right to be told"? of course, why not.

Something overly exciting? hardly.

Like every other country on the face of the planet which possess a Compulsory National Service component to its governance and national life, what we are seeing here in Israel, with the Druze kid, is typical rather than atypical, and Israeli reaction in such matters appear to be applied equally across the spectrum of demographics for that country's population base - Druze, Jew, whatever.

A map of the world, showing countries which currently employ Military Conscription:

Also, that map fails to mention that both the United States and Germany have Conscription on the books, to re-awaken in case of National Emergency.

That is the reason why every male registers with the Selective Service at the age of 18 in the United States.

There are penalties for not registering...

What is the penalty for not registering? Failure to register is a violation of the Military Selective Service Act. Conviction for such a violation may result in imprisonment for up to five years and/or a fine of not more than $250,000.
Selective Service System: Registration Information

.
...and worse ones for failing to report for duty after you have been called-up (tapped to go into the military).
.
.

In light of the way that many other countries - including the United States - deal with their own Conscientious Objectors while still remaining within the framework of domestic and interional law...

In its dealings with Conscientious Objectors to Compulsory National (Military) Service, it would appear that Israel is well within the boundaries of acceptable behaviors, as those behaviors and reactions to Objectors exist throughout that portion of the International Community which also either (a) utilizes Conscription or (b) makes provision for it during National Emergencies.

 

[Kondor3]

And, with respect to the previously-raised Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Amnesty International's questionable interpretation of the Declaration, as it applies to Military Conscription around the world...


...In 1948, the issue of the right to "conscience" was dealt with by the United Nations General Assembly in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It reads: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." The proclamation was ratified during the General Assembly on 10 December 1948 by a vote of 48 in favour, 0 against, with 8 abstentions.

In 1974, the Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, Sean MacBride said, in his Nobel Lecture, "To the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights one more might, with relevance, be added. It is 'The Right to Refuse to Kill.'"

In 1976, the United Nations treaty the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights entered into force. It was based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and was originally created in 1966. Nations that have signed this treaty are bound by it. Its Article 18 begins: "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. ..."

However, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights left the issue of conscientious objection inexplicit, as we see in this quote from War Resisters International: "Article 18 of the Covenant does put some limits on the right [to freedom of thought, conscience and religion], stating that [its] manifestations must not infringe on public safety, order, health or morals. Some states argue that such limitations [on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion] would [derivatively] permit them to make conscientious objection during time of war a threat to public safety, or mass conscientious objection a disruption to public order,...[Some states] even [argue] that it is a 'moral' duty to serve the state in its military."

On July 30, 1993, explicit clarification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 18 was made in the United Nations Human Rights Committee general comment 22, Paragraph 11: "The Covenant does not explicitly refer to a right to conscientious objection, but the Committee believes that such a right can be derived from article 18, inasmuch as the obligation to use lethal force may seriously conflict with the freedom of conscience and the right to manifest one's religion or belief." In 2006, the Committee has found for the first time a right to conscientious objection under article 18, although not unanimously.

In 1997, an announcement of Amnesty International's forthcoming campaign and briefing for the UN Commission on Human Rights included this quote: "The right to conscientious objection to military service is not a marginal concern outside the mainstream of international human rights protection and promotion."

In 1998, the Human Rights Commission reiterated previous statements and added "states should . . . refrain from subjecting conscientious objectors . . . to repeated punishment for failure to perform military service." It also encouraged states "to consider granting asylum to those conscientious objectors compelled to leave their country of origin because they fear persecution owing to their refusal to perform military service . . . ."

Conscientious objector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

========================================

Clearly, this is a matter for broad and generous interpretation, leaving each country which employes Military Conscription, a wide latitude in dealing with such persons.

Hell, Switzerland - the home of the Geneva Conventions - has Military Conscription!!!

Note that none of the so-called International Law on the subject, as referenced herein, either explicitly prohibits Military Conscription nor does it explicitly protect Conscientious Objectors.

Rather, the UN Human Rights Commission and its various Committees have said that it believes that such protections should exist or can be inferred from various elements of such law and recently made an arbitrary pronouncement on such matters based on such beliefs - an arbitrary pronouncement which various member States are entirely free to adopt or reject without prejudice to their standing at the United Nations.

Also, we should note that the Committee's admonishments and cautions merely suggest that a State should not punish a Conscientious Objector REPEATEDLY, but remains silent upon the matter of the FIRST punishment. This, too, tells us something about the narrow extent to which these International interpretations about Conscientious Objectors and related punishments are binding (or non-binding) upon various member States.

And, as for Amnesty International, and its interpretations and pronouncements and pontifications.. its reputation for impartiality and objectivity is not what it once was; at least, outside of a Liberal-leaning framework. Many people today subject such outputs to a very close and skeptical scrutiny.

It would appear that the Israelis are not even out of compliance with Mandatory or Binding aspects of international law and related declarations, in their dealings with their Conscientious Objectors - Druze, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, whatever - certainly no more than most other countries which actively employ Conscription or keep it On Standby.

Israel does seem to fall a bit short with respect to repeated punishments, such as was the case with the 10 jailings of Natan Blanc, the Jewish kid refernced in recent postings in this thread, but they, like others, may have learned their lesson about such things, with the Blanc case.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Wikipedia is not a credible source for setting forth relevant international law.

Amnesty International is a credible source.

I choose to accept Amnesty's opinion that Omar's detention is unlawful under international law.

Amnesty International has an understanding of the specific facts of Omar's case and international law that Kondor 3 lacks.

 

[Kondor3]

Wikipedia is not a credible source for setting forth relevant international law. Amnesty International is a credible source. I choose to accept Amnesty's opinion that Omar's detention is unlawful under international law. Amnesty International has an understanding of the specific facts of Omar's case and international law that Kondor 3 lacks.

========================================

Various contributors to the Wiki article provided credible source-citations (the UN, itself) for their various summary-level contributions.

You are welcome to challenge those on a point-by-point basis, if you can.

But you won't, because you lack the talent and skill for that, and because substantive counterpointing from credible sources does not exist.

You can choose to accept anything you like.

It does not change the objective truth of the matter, as outlined in the following post, repeated here for convenience sake...

========================================

And, with respect to the previously-raised Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Amnesty International's questionable interpretation of the Declaration, as it applies to Military Conscription around the world...


...In 1948, the issue of the right to "conscience" was dealt with by the United Nations General Assembly in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It reads: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." The proclamation was ratified during the General Assembly on 10 December 1948 by a vote of 48 in favour, 0 against, with 8 abstentions.

In 1974, the Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, Sean MacBride said, in his Nobel Lecture, "To the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights one more might, with relevance, be added. It is 'The Right to Refuse to Kill.'"

In 1976, the United Nations treaty the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights entered into force. It was based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and was originally created in 1966. Nations that have signed this treaty are bound by it. Its Article 18 begins: "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. ..."

However, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights left the issue of conscientious objection inexplicit, as we see in this quote from War Resisters International: "Article 18 of the Covenant does put some limits on the right [to freedom of thought, conscience and religion], stating that [its] manifestations must not infringe on public safety, order, health or morals. Some states argue that such limitations [on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion] would [derivatively] permit them to make conscientious objection during time of war a threat to public safety, or mass conscientious objection a disruption to public order,...[Some states] even [argue] that it is a 'moral' duty to serve the state in its military."

On July 30, 1993, explicit clarification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 18 was made in the United Nations Human Rights Committee general comment 22, Paragraph 11: "The Covenant does not explicitly refer to a right to conscientious objection, but the Committee believes that such a right can be derived from article 18, inasmuch as the obligation to use lethal force may seriously conflict with the freedom of conscience and the right to manifest one's religion or belief." In 2006, the Committee has found for the first time a right to conscientious objection under article 18, although not unanimously.

In 1997, an announcement of Amnesty International's forthcoming campaign and briefing for the UN Commission on Human Rights included this quote: "The right to conscientious objection to military service is not a marginal concern outside the mainstream of international human rights protection and promotion."

In 1998, the Human Rights Commission reiterated previous statements and added "states should . . . refrain from subjecting conscientious objectors . . . to repeated punishment for failure to perform military service." It also encouraged states "to consider granting asylum to those conscientious objectors compelled to leave their country of origin because they fear persecution owing to their refusal to perform military service . . . ."

Conscientious objector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

========================================

Clearly, this is a matter for broad and generous interpretation, leaving each country which employes Military Conscription, a wide latitude in dealing with such persons.

Hell, Switzerland - the home of the Geneva Conventions - has Military Conscription!!!

Note that none of the so-called International Law on the subject, as referenced herein, either explicitly prohibits Military Conscription nor does it explicitly protect Conscientious Objectors.

Rather, the UN Human Rights Commission and its various Committees have said that it believes that such protections should exist or can be inferred from various elements of such law and recently made an arbitrary pronouncement on such matters based on such beliefs - an arbitrary pronouncement which various member States are entirely free to adopt or reject without prejudice to their standing at the United Nations.

Also, we should note that the Committee's admonishments and cautions merely suggest that a State should not punish a Conscientious Objector REPEATEDLY, but remains silent upon the matter of the FIRST punishment. This, too, tells us something about the narrow extent to which these International interpretations about Conscientious Objectors and related punishments are binding (or non-binding) upon various member States.

And, as for Amnesty International, and its interpretations and pronouncements and pontifications.. its reputation for impartiality and objectivity is not what it once was; at least, outside of a Liberal-leaning framework. Many people today subject such outputs to a very close and skeptical scrutiny.

It would appear that the Israelis are not even out of compliance with Mandatory or Binding aspects of international law and related declarations, in their dealings with their Conscientious Objectors - Druze, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, whatever - certainly no more than most other countries which actively employ Conscription or keep it On Standby.

Israel does seem to fall a bit short with respect to repeated punishments, such as was the case with the 10 jailings of Natan Blanc, the Jewish kid refernced in recent postings in this thread, but they, like others, may have learned their lesson about such things, with the Blanc case.

\
=========================================

Oh, and, Kondor does not pretend any particular competence in matters of Human Rights within an International Law context.

Never have... never will... but, as a layman, I'm just as capable as the next person of conducting online research pertaining to Conscription and Conscientious Objectors, and relating those findings to the audience and adding my own articulation, as a courtesy, and my own opinion, as is my right.

I always leave it to the audience to make up their own minds on a given subject; rather than questioning the competency of a colleague in such matters, unless my 'adversary' tries to get nasty with 'competency challenges' first.

Given that you've done just that, above...

You are not competent in such matters either, so that makes it even, in this narrow context; unless your general-purpose law background is hiding a particular competency that you have yet to share with the rest of us.

I have laid out the Opposing Viewpoint regarding whether international law makes the sort of provisions in connection with either Conscription or Conscientious Objection that would shield the Druze kid in the OP from a vigorous prosecution...

I have laid out the Opposing Viewpoint regarding whether Israel treats its Druze Conscientious Objectors any differently than it treats its Jewish Conscientious Objectors...

I will trust audience members to make up their own minds without trashing you, Sherri...

You trash yourself often enough and thoroughly enough so that there is no need for me to contribute to that in any significant way...

Your illogic and blinkered myopia and Josef Goebbels -style propagandizing render you as your own worst enemy... you do far more damage to yourself than others ever could.

And your adversaries are content that it be so.

 

[toastman]

I think it's pretty much a given that it's impossible to have a normal debate with Sherri.

Besides the fact that she spews venomous hate, she is EXTREMELY bias and has lost all credibility with her outrageous claims about other posters here, the definition of Zionism and her opinion about Israel. Shes just another lost hateful soul, spewing nonsense which no one even listens to.
Poor sick wicked woman ....

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

"Army regulations allow for conscientious objector status only when a candidate to military service declares that he or she is a “complete and utter pacifist” who resists all kinds of violence and not solely the occupation.

We have a letter submitted by Omar to Israels Prime Minister over a year ago that sets forth his beliefs, that letter I believe can be accessed from this article I just quoted from.

Omar Sa’ad’s declarations could qualify under these conditions.

But Omar Saad was not even summoned to the army’s conscientious committee, which is the normal Israeli procedure to deal with conscientious objectors.

"The only answer he received to the above initial statement of refusal was a letter saying that it “will be taken into consideration.”"

The other thing I learned from this article is Omar is a Communist, and based on the letter he wrote , a Communist Pacifist, in all instances opposed to violence of any kind. He was raised in a family engrained with these beliefs and values.

Druze youth likely headed to prison for conscientious objection | +972 Magazine

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

"According to Amnesty, the right to object military service is protected under Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Israel is a party."

Druze teen faces jail over refusing to serve in Israeli army | Maan News Agency

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 18

December 16, 1966. "No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice [...] Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others."

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/c...t-on-civil-and-political-rights-article-18--2

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

"Repeated imprisonment is a violation of international legal standards. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in Opinion 24/2003*on Israel came to the conclusion that the repeated imprisonment of conscientious objectors in Israel is arbitrary, and therefore it constitutes a violation of 14 par 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of which Israel is a signatory."

Meet Nathan Blanc, Israeli conscientious objector | Mondoweiss

As usual, we see Israel violating her obligations under international law with respect to her treatment of conscientious objectors

 

[Sally]

"Repeated imprisonment is a violation of international legal standards. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in Opinion 24/2003*on Israel came to the conclusion that the repeated imprisonment of conscientious objectors in Israel is arbitrary, and therefore it constitutes a violation of 14 par 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of which Israel is a signatory."

Meet Nathan Blanc, Israeli conscientious objector | Mondoweiss

As usual, we see Israel violating her obligations under international law with respect to her treatment of conscientious objectors

Can you tell us why you are so obsessed with this when your "fellow Christians" are being murdered in the Middle East? I would think that on a Middle East forum you would like to discuss this as it is really more important than someone who refused to serve in the military, especially when this happens in militaries around the world.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

"Repeated imprisonment is a violation of international legal standards. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in Opinion 24/2003*on Israel came to the conclusion that the repeated imprisonment of conscientious objectors in Israel is arbitrary, and therefore it constitutes a violation of 14 par 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of which Israel is a signatory."

Meet Nathan Blanc, Israeli conscientious objector | Mondoweiss

As usual, we see Israel violating her obligations under international law with respect to her treatment of conscientious objectors

Can you tell us why you are so obsessed with this when your "fellow Christians" are being murdered in the Middle East? I would think that on a Middle East forum you would like to discuss this as it is really more important than someone who refused to serve in the military, especially when this happens in militaries around the world.

I am not obsessed with delusions of dying Christians like you!

Do yourself a favor, get help for your problem.

And STFU if you have nothing to say about thread topics.

 

[Sally]

"Repeated imprisonment is a violation of international legal standards. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in Opinion 24/2003*on Israel came to the conclusion that the repeated imprisonment of conscientious objectors in Israel is arbitrary, and therefore it constitutes a violation of 14 par 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of which Israel is a signatory."

Meet Nathan Blanc, Israeli conscientious objector | Mondoweiss

As usual, we see Israel violating her obligations under international law with respect to her treatment of conscientious objectors

Can you tell us why you are so obsessed with this when your "fellow Christians" are being murdered in the Middle East? I would think that on a Middle East forum you would like to discuss this as it is really more important than someone who refused to serve in the military, especially when this happens in militaries around the world.

I am not obsessed with delusions of dying Christians like you!

Do yourself a favor, get help for your problem.

And STFU if you have nothing to say about thread topics.

You are the one who needs help with whatever mental problem you have. This is the Middle East forum, and you are obsessed with one kid who refused military service and people are dying all over the Middle East. Look at all the posts on what is really an insignificant thread given what is happening elsewhere. The only reason you have brought this up is because it happens to involved Israel. If 50 young men in one day refused to serve in the Iranian Army, we wouldn't have heard a peep out of you.