Palestinian children tortured, used as shields by Israel: U.N.

[toastman]

Sheeba Farms is land Israel has no sovereignty rights in which she is an Occupier of under intl law. We all must recognize there are human beings who live in all of these occupied lands and that includes children. The UN Report discussed in the OP addresses rights of the child violated within all of these lands Israel occupies within the meaning of intl law. The thread topic is abuses against children.

Please point us to UN coverage of the abuse of children on the Sheeba Farms.

The Report addresses human rights conditions of children throughout the territories Israel occupies, which is clear from page 1 of that UN Report. Read the report for yourself.

He was referring to the Sheeba farms. You claimed there are human rights abuses there. Are you admitting you were wrong when you made that statement ?

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Lebanon and*Syria*say the*Shebaa Farms, measuring just 22sqkm, is Lebanese territory, though the UN has ruled it*part*of the*Syrian Golan Heights,*

IRIN Mobile. IRIN is a UN organization and they state Sheeba Farms is a part of the Occcupied Syrian Golan Heights.

 

[toastman]

Lebanon and*Syria*say the*Shebaa Farms, measuring just 22sqkm, is Lebanese territory, though the UN has ruled it*part*of the*Syrian Golan Heights,*

IRIN Mobile. IRIN is a UN organization and they state Sheeba Farms is a part of the Occcupied Syrian Golan Heights.

The United Nations had to decide upon a "withdrawal line" for Israel to withdraw from Lebanon (for Security Council Resolution 425).[4] The UN certified Israel's withdrawal as conforming to that line.

Shebaa farms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

The UN views Sheeba Farms as part of the Occupied Syrian Golan Heights. The UN Report addressed in the OP discusses the condition of children and their human rights issues within all of the Occupied Territories, Occupied Syrian Terrritories and Occupied Palestinian Territories.

 

[toastman]

Show us specifically where the Sheeba Farms is mentioned in that report, you lying sack of propaganda spewing Nazi

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

I keep having to repeat myself over and over. Page 1of the UN Report indicates the report is addressing the condition of the child in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Occupied Syrian Golan Heights. Sheeba Farms is part of the Syrian Occupied Territories.

 

[toastman]

I keep having to repeat myself over and over. Page 1of the UN Report indicates the report is addressing the condition of the child in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Occupied Syrian Golan Heights. Sheeba Farms is part of the Syrian Occupied Territories.

So you admit that you lied about the Sheeba farms. Thanks for at least acknowledging that...it takes guts to do that

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

PG 3 Of UN Report contains Recommendations to ensure provisions in the Convention On The Rights Of Child are met, that include such things as requiring the Occupying State to disseminate informstion on the Convention in all official languages among children and parents and collect data on all persons under 18 and use this data to assess progress and design policies to implement the Convention. The Committee also recommends Israel integrate the rights and principles provisions of the Convention into its domestic legal system. Pg 4 More recomendations to insure compliance with Convention

 

[Kondor3]

And here I thought that the Shebba Farms region was uninhabited in modern times.

If true, that makes it kinda difficult to abuse nonexistent children.

Then again, the original reference (previous page) was just a bad segue and thread-bumping excuse anyway.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

PG 5 Committee begins to address the Convention, Israel is bound to abide this Convention by her treaty obligations under intl law. Defining the child, a child has rights up to turning 18. The Committee points out that Israel signed into law a Military Order 1676 in 9/11 that raises the age of majority in adult military courts from 16 to 18. But the Committee expresses concern that Israel is not in practice applying this order. The Committee urges Israel to ensure children are in fact treated as chidren up to 18, in particular with respect to the provisions involving juvenile justice. The Committee addresses General Principles . Non-discrimination. Paragraph 21- The Committee is concerned that non discrimination is not a right under Israels Basic Laws. The Committee is concerned about numerous specific laws enacted that discriminate against Palestinians and affect primarily Palestinian children in all all aspects of their life and also affect Arab Israeli and Bedouin and Ethiopian children and children of migrant workers and asylum seekers. The Committee is concerned the establishment of separate means of transport and road services and the implementation of two separate legal systems and institutions amount to de facto segregation and lead to inequality between Israeli and Palestinian children. The Committee urges Israel to mandate the prohibition of discrimination into her Basic Laws and for a repeal of discriminatory laws and policies.

 

[RoccoR]

SherriMunnerlyn, et al,

I believe you are incorrect, but understandably so. This is a timeline issue of when decisions were made.

"The San Remo Conference decided on April 24, 1920 to assign the Mandate [for Palestine] under the League of Nations to Britain. The terms of the Mandate were also discussed with the United States which was not a member of the League. An agreed text was confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on July 24, 1922, and it came into operation in September 1923."

SOURCE: San Remo Convention - World War I Document Archive
and
Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine mandates - San Remo conference (UK, France, Italy, Japan) - Resolution (Non-UN document) (25 April 1920)

This agreement between post-World War I allied powers (Britain, France, Italy, Japan) was adopted on April 25, 1920 during the San Remo Conference. The Mandate for Palestine was based on this resolution; it incorporated the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the Covenant of the League of Nation's Article 22. Britain was charged with establishing a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine. Terroritorial boundaries were not decided until four years after.

SOURCE: San Remo Resolution - Council on Foreign Relations

I see no clear agreement of the Allied Powers about Palestine 90 years ago, the Mandate itself contained clauses which was adopted by The League Of Nations within it sending mixed messages to people in the land.

(COMMENT)

The correct order of events is:

• The Balfour Declaration which drive San Remo of 2 November 1917 and the Faisal-Wiezmann Agreement.
• Faisal-Wiezmann Agreement of 3 January 1919, which impacts Article 22 of the evolving Covenant.
  • National aspirations
  • Zionist Organization
• THE COVENANT OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 28 April 1919, Article 22, pushes the San Remo accord. Comes into effect 10 January, 1920.
  
  You will notice that the language follows in successive documents. The Article 22 of the Covenant remains silent on the issue of the Jewish National Home. Its importance is to state for the record that the region is not yet ready to stand on its own, independent and sovereignty.​
• San Remo Conference, 25 April 1920 which drives the language of Articles 94-97 and 132 of the
  [*]Treaty of Sevres 10 August 1920; and the undefined territorial
  [*]Mandate of Palestine 22 August 1922.

Notice that the phrase:

"in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."​

It first appears in the San Remo accord and follows through all documents there after; except the Covenant. The San Remo accord is the father of the language that push through with everything after to the Mandate.

The importance of the San Remo Convention is found in the Churchhill White Paper of 3 June, 1922.

So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re-affirmed by the Conference of the Principal Allied Powers at San Reino and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.

SOURCE: "Churchill White Paper" - UK Secretary of State for the Colonies (3 June 1922)

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Just because a Mandate is assigned to a Nation, it does not give that nation a right to make up and apply their own laws to the Mandated Territories. A Mandate is in the nature of a trust relationship, soveregnty in the land was always with and never has left the indigenous people in the land.

 

[RoccoR]

SherriMunnerlyn, et al,

How do you make a law? (Rhetorical) You make the law through a legislative act.

Just because a Mandate is assigned to a Nation, it does not give that nation a right to make up and apply their own laws to the Mandated Territories. A Mandate is in the nature of a trust relationship, soveregnty in the land was always with and never has left the indigenous people in the land.

(COMMENT)

The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations (12 August 1922)

Yes, a Mandate is an incredible responsibility. And I believe the UK did its best. I believe the UK went out of its way to protect the rights of the Palestinian, remembering of course, the requirement "in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

I see the Arab/Palestinian is hostile people. They will go to any length to create trouble and attempt to find so rule they can hold in their favor.

They are the undoubtedly the biggest whiners in the region; an albatross and parasite to everyone that attempt to help them or point them in a productive direction.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

SherriMunnerlyn, et al,

How do you make a law? (Rhetorical) You make the law through a legislative act.

Just because a Mandate is assigned to a Nation, it does not give that nation a right to make up and apply their own laws to the Mandated Territories. A Mandate is in the nature of a trust relationship, soveregnty in the land was always with and never has left the indigenous people in the land.

(COMMENT)

The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations (12 August 1922)

Yes, a Mandate is an incredible responsibility. And I believe the UK did its best. I believe the UK went out of its way to protect the rights of the Palestinian, remembering of course, the requirement "in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

I see the Arab/Palestinian is hostile people. They will go to any length to create trouble and attempt to find so rule they can hold in their favor.

They are the undoubtedly the biggest whiners in the region; an albatross and parasite to everyone that attempt to help them or point them in a productive direction.

Most Respectfully,
R

The British never had sovereignty rights in land to give to anyone, the sovereignty rights remain with the indigenous people. The Balfour Declaration was itself a violation of intl law and that is addressed in Part 1 of that UN Historical document. That is what intl law tells us. Now, defining who the indigenous people are now, to me seems to be the bigger problem. We started the Mandate Period with about 80% Palestinian Muslims and 10% Palestinian Christians and 10% Palestinian Jews in the land of Palestine. Israel ethnically cleansed 750, 000 Palestinians from the land from 1947 to 1949. I think them and their descendants now total about 5 million. They have the right to return under intl law. There are over 5 million Palestinians in Israel and the OPT. There may be some overlap between my two groupings of 5 million refugees and 5 million Palestinians Iin Palestine and Israel because some who still live in the land are also refugees from their original villages.

 

[Kondor3]

The problem for the Palestinians is that they no longer control the land upon which the modern State of Israel is positioned, and they have very little practical hope of changing that.

Consequently, they dwell upon now-meaningless 70 and 80 and 90 -year-old treaties and understandings that were swept aside by events in the period 1947 to the present.

It's over.

The Jews won.

The Muslim-Palestinians lost.

The Palestinian Cause is rather like a chicken with its head freshly cut off...

Its body runs-about the barnyard flapping its wings and spraying blood from the open neck wound and making a mess...

But it's dead, nevertheless - its body simply hasn't figured that out yet - but when it does, it will lie down sensibly and be still forever more.

Today, it matters very little what the Balfour Declaration said, or what the of the League of Nations -sponsored British Mandate of Palestine empowered the British to do.

What matters is who has the land today, and who is going to have the land tomorrow.

The answer to both of those questions is: Israel.

Palestine no longer figures into the equation, beyond the short-term.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

The fact the Pals have been offered land several times in violation of the San Remo Mandate, and yet the Pals still refused it shows that they really do not have the interests of their people at heart and simply want to drive all the Jews out of the land of Israel and keep the whole land for themselves. Don't they just love playing the poor ickle victims.

 

[RoccoR]

SherriMunnerlyn, et al,

The British never had sovereignty rights in land to give to anyone, the sovereignty rights remain with the indigenous people.

(COMMENT)

Relative to Israel, the UK never gave anything away. The Mandate was first partitioned to permit the establishment of the Hashemite Kingdom. But that was done with the approval of the LoNs and the Allied Powers. There is no violation of international law there.

The Balfour Declaration was itself a violation of intl law and that is addressed in Part 1 of that UN Historical document. That is what intl law tells us.

(COMMENT)

The Balfour Declaration did not implement or effect any change. The Balfour Declaration pre-dates any of the International laws you can cite.

It was the San Remo Convention, the Treaty of Sevres, and ultimately the General Assembly Resolution 181(II) --- then the General Assembly Resolution 273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations.

The UK relinquished the Mandate before the Israelis declared Independence and accepted the terms as offered by the General Assembly. The General Assembly makes the International Law. The UK didn't violate anything, it had already withdrawn.

Now, defining who the indigenous people are now, to me seems to be the bigger problem. We started the Mandate Period with about 80% Palestinian Muslims and 10% Palestinian Christians and 10% Palestinian Jews in the land of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Somehow you think this makes some difference. It doesn't.

It was the intention of those who wrote the International Law to "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."

Israel ethnically cleansed 750, 000 Palestinians from the land from 1947 to 1949.

(COMMENT)

The Arab/Palestinian brought that on themselves. It was they who initiated violent action when the GA adopted the Partition Plan in 1947; not the Jewish. It was the Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) that became the threat to regional peace in 1947.

I think them and their descendants now total about 5 million. They have the right to return under intl law.

(COMMENT)

No one - no group - no people, who openly was and continues to be a threat to regional peace has the right to return anywhere. The concept of the right to return presuppose that the right is extended to peaceful peoples. It does not apply to a enemy population that ignited a war, lost their land and now want it back.

There are over 5 million Palestinians in Israel and the OPT. There may be some overlap between my two groupings of 5 million refugees and 5 million Palestinians in Palestine and Israel because some who still live in the land are also refugees from their original villages.

(COMMENT)

Sad, but self-inflicted.

The HoAP owes reparations, restitution and compensation for initiating the outbreak of hostilities, for criminally conspiring with Arab States that invaded the integrity of a sovereign nation, and for organizing and instigating additional wars and insurrections against the sovereignty of a nation, and regional peace, causing great harm to the people and the integrity of the nation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Indofred]

All this rubbish about who won and lost a war is simply deflection from the accusations I laid out in my OP.
Israel, the only country in the world to ever give the UN the finger (Not even North Korea have done that), tortures children.

Countries that break so many laws are usually invaded (in case they have WMDs) or have sanctions against them, but America pays Israel and supplies massive quantities of arms (at American taxpayer's expense) so it can defend itself.

One has to wonder why.

 

[RoccoR]

Indofred, et al,

Because nearly everyone understands that this is a propaganda to incite emotion.

All this rubbish about who won and lost a war is simply deflection from the accusations I laid out in my OP.
Israel, the only country in the world to ever give the UN the finger (Not even North Korea have done that), tortures children.

Countries that break so many laws are usually invaded (in case they have WMDs) or have sanctions against them, but America pays Israel and supplies massive quantities of arms (at American taxpayer's expense) so it can defend itself.

One has to wonder why.

(COMMENT)

This is a variant of hiding behind children.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

THose human rights groups keep telling us it is a Israel and not Hamas using children as human shields. And torture typically comes after unlawful detentions.