What makes Palestinian children unique?

[CyberPundit]

“But the GA singles out Israel almost as a boilerplate on anything about human rights concerns in the world in general.”
Can you give examples of this? In any case the GA is only one part of the UN and not the most important IMO. Like I said the UN has helped Israel by ruling for it in the Sheba Farms dispute and played an important role in delegitimizing Hezbollah attacks on Israel . The absence of specific GA resolutions doesn’t change this.

[CyberPundit]

BTW when you talk about Palestinian militants abusing children what exactly are you talking about? Are they being forced to participate in fighting like in the passage you quoted? I didn’t see any reference to the Palestinians there.

[markdiscordia]

No, one need not count out equal time to every world injustice in order to speak about one. However, whitewashing rights violations committed by political allies while using those by foes as a pretext for hatred (or war) is a different matter. It’s not that the International Socialist Leftist Solidarity Workers Party type groups have continued to demonstrate against Israel while ignoring Venezeula, Zimbabwe, Yugoslavia, and other countries where equal or worse crimes were/are being committed by leftist governments; it’s that they defended those regimes and continue to do so. Ultimately, I suspect, this is not about who’s violating whose rights, or even about anti-Semitism, but about the fact that the Soviets funded the Arab states and the US funded Israel, and that’s all that professional leftists need to know to decide who’s right.

With that said, it’s good to see organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, which really are about reporting violations of rights rather than advancing a generalized left-wing and/or racist agenda, get involved. Not surprisingly, their reports tend to conclude that both the Israeli government and the PLO have much to account for and the common people on both sides are the ones suffering.

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

**Yes. It is rediculous.

**Okay, that’s fair enough. In your opinion, Israel is the automatic Good Guy, so therefore any suggestion that other people in the world might think that Israel is the Bad Guy here elicits only the comment from you that the suggestion is “ridiculous”. You refuse even to entertain for a moment the suggestion that maybe Vanuatu and the Grenadines and Macedonia and France think that Israel is the Bad Guy, so that’s why they pass all those anti-Israel resolutions. No, it can’t be that they all really think the Israel is the Bad Guy–it must be the Evil Arab Conspiracy that runs the UN. :rolleyes:

There are all sorts of human rights abuses being perpetuated all over the world.

Right, but as CyberPundit has already pointed out:

It is the unfinished business of the UN [partition] plan of more than 50 years ago. The UNHCR is responsible for the welfare of the Palestinian people. The Palestinians are a stateless people so no state can speak for them. This set of conditions doesn’t apply to the other countries mentioned in the OP.

So that gives the UN all the motive it needs to focus a bit more on the Palestinian problem than on the Rwandan problem, or the problem of Australian aborigines, or the problem of Bosnia or Macedonia or Somalia or Zimbabwe or any of the other global hotspots. No “Arabs control the UN” conspiracy theory is required to explain it–it’s just common sense.

I wouldn’t say Arabs control the UN. But that have enough influence to force the issue on matters that they care about…

Uh huh. :rolleyes:

Sorry, I’m not reeeeeeally in the mood for bushwhacking through the conspiracy theories tonight, other than to ask, in a desultory sort of way, because I know that you don’t, if you have any kind of CITE for that.

You know, it’s like, just FTR, on behalf of the Fight Against Ignorance and generations yet to come, I feel obliged to ask, Izzy, whether you have any kind of PROOF that the “Arabs”…

(and of course, we’ll need to see your definition of “Arabs”)

…have somehow pressured

Albania Algeria Andorra Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize BeninBhutan Bolivia Botswana Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad China Colombia Comoros Congo Costa Rica Côte d’Ivoire Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Fiji Finland France Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Grenada Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Ireland Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kuwait Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Micronesia Monaco Morocco Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar Republic of Korea Republic of Moldova Romania Russian Federation Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Seychelles Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands South Africa Spain Sri Lanka Suriname Swaziland Sweden Syrian Arab Republic Thailand The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Tuvalu Uganda UkraineUnited Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland United Republic of Tanzania Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Yemen Zambia, and Zimbabwe

into voting for all the various pro-Palestinian UN resolutions over the years.

Not to mention

Sierra Leone Rwanda Yugoslavia Kyrgyz Chile Afghanistan Democratic Republic of the Congo Iraq Myanmar The Sudan Cambodia Guatemala Somalia Liberia Ethiopia Tokelau New Caledonia Western Sahara Timor-Leste Mozambique Tajikistan AngolaKazakhstan Mongolia Cuba Bosnia-Herzegovina Afghanistan Timor-Leste Switzerland and the United States?

How did they do it? What’s the mechanism involved? Large amounts of cash in Burger King bags, passed to operatives in trench coats? Secret Swiss bank accounts? Ay-rab legbreakers in pinstripe suits and MIB Ray-Bans sent around to the Grenadines Embassy to mutter ominously, “Better vote for Resolution 107 or we’ll cut off your oil…”?

Cite? Proof? Anything other than pure speculation and conspiracy theories?

Didn’t think so.

But hey, you go right on without me, I’m sure you’ll have a good time, you’ve always managed to enjoy yourself in the past. Here, wanna borrow my machete? But not the blue poncho, that’s my good poncho…

[DSeid]

Human rights groups are unaminous in considering the use of children as soldiers … guerilla or otherwise … as an abuse of children’s rights. Even if they were willing. Encouraging children to attack armed forces, be it with rocks or as suicide bombers, using children as sheilds, as is habitually done by Palestinian militants, hiding materials and troops in heavily populated areas, I think qualifies as an abuse of children’s rights. And of course terrorists bombing of schoolbuses, etc …

The boilerplate? The singling out of Israel for this resolution, when the Women’s rights resolutions went through, both leap immediately to mind. The most entertaining though (and somewhat of a point against my POV of only singling out Israel, but still …) was the Arab Human Development Report. This was, in my mind, a ballsy document that documented the abysmal state of human rights in the Arab world. Israel was excluded from analysis (Israeli Arabs’ rights are tremendous compared to conditions elsewhere in the MidEast, even in the West Bank, more educational opportunities exist than in most of the Arab world) but it still needed to have the required boilerplate about the evils of the occupation. Entertaining because, after the boilerplate, what they said took chutzpah: they also acknowledged that Arab governments also use Israel as a scapegoat to distract from abuses within their own lands. And that the state of human rights in Arab countries was awful. Okay, they phrased very delicately, but the data was in there.

I really don’t know how you can keep a straight face when you say that the GA is motivated by a sense of responsibilty for the MidEast. I do agree with you about the relative importance of the GA to the SC (… I just corrected a Freudian typo … had typed impotence ;)) The GA resolutions are for show and have no power behind them. It gives a lot of countries a chance to brown nose up to their Arab business partners and collegues, without actually putting anything on the line. The SC comes closer to actually making a committment to do something and is consequently much more cautious. What the GA does achieve with this pandering however, is reinforcing the Israeli hardliner positions with the general Israeli public: it supports the perception that the UN, the world at large, is heavily biased against Israel, consequently what is required is to hunker down against the whole world, cause everyone really is out to get you given half a chance. You see, there is nothing like having had various forces try to completely destroy you on many occassions to make you a little paranoid.

[CyberPundit]

“Human rights groups are unaminous in considering the use of children as soldiers … guerilla or otherwise … as an abuse of children’s rights. Even if they were willing.”
I think the important thing is the magnitude of the abuse. That depends on the age of the children ,whether they are willing or not and what exactly they do. So you haven’t shown that Palestinian abuse “dwarfs” that of the Israelis.
It’s important to note that the Israeli occupation and military activities, especially in recent months, affect the day-to-day life of all Palestinian children in a systematic way. I think that’s what the focus of the resolution was.

“The singling out of Israel for this resolution, when the Women’s rights resolutions went through, both leap immediately to mind”
What was the women’s rights resolution? Was that the GA? What does the resolution say? For that matter I would like to see a text of the children’s resolution to see what it says exactly.

“I really don’t know how you can keep a straight face when you say that the GA is motivated by a sense of responsibilty for the MidEast”
I think I have given clear-cut reasons why the Palestinian situation is unique in terms of UN involvement and responsibility. You can say you are not “convinced” and then that you don’t know how I can keep a straight face but that doesn’t amount to much of a counter-argument.

[DSeid]

Sorry, but after much googling I can’t seem to get to a text of the Beijing Women’s Rights Platform, only a reference to it. Damn. So I’m left with my recollection and plea to someone better at googling than I to find it. And my site for UN resolutions states up front that there will be a few weeks delay between a resolution passing and its text being posted online.

Well, we at least seem to agree that Israel is being singled out, and not because what they are doing is especially bad. You ascribe a beneficient motive to the actions, I am a bit more cynical. Your position would be strengthened by a past UN statement as to their sense of special responsibilty to the situation in Israel/Palestine above and beyond other areas … I would think that they’d be public about a motive like that. Mine will be strengthened if the actual resolution (which I have not seen either) only mentions Israel’s culpability to the exclusion of condemnation of Palestinian chidren being used by militants as weapons, soldiers and sheilds, and to the exclusion of condemnation of terror attacks on children in settlements and Israel proper. If they are motivated by a special sense of responsibility to the area then they’d be as critical of these offenses as they are of the alleged offenses by Israeli troops.

[MC_Master_of_Ceremonies]

The thing is Palestinian militants don’t use children as shields or weapons. I don’t know where your getting this from.

Palestinian militants have been criticized in the past for hiding in crowds of civilians but this hardly constitutes a human shield (unlike the IDF who do actually have a policy of using Palestinian civilians as human shields). As for weapons, a child throwing stones at a heavily armed soldier or Israeli tank should not be treated as armed and the IDF should not fire on them as they have done.

[DSeid]

Child suicide bombers don’t count in your mind? Intentionally putting kids in harms way doesn’t really count?

Where else do I get this from? The PLO’s long history. I neglected to save this site’s address but what I copied had its references in it.

In the 1970s Arafat established military training camps for “cubs” and proudly exhibited to the press children
shooting rifles and rolling through fiery obstacle courses.
In the 1982 war in Lebanon, Israeli soldiers were confronted on numerous occasions by “RPG kids” – young teenagers
Palestinian “cubs” in the 1970s equipped with anti-tank rocket propelled grenade launchers. If Israeli soldiers
hesitated, the results were often fatal - Eliyahu Tal, “Now the Story Can Be Told,” WZO Press, 1982, page 46

In June 1982, the PLO issued another call-up order for all boys aged 12 and older whose fathers served in Fatah units. The children were promised $80 a month and were attached to regular PLO battalions, each serving in his father’s company - Ze’ev Schiff and Ehud Ya’ari, Israel’s Lebanon War, page 85 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984)

Today, Palestinian children are an integral part of Arafat’s strategy of armed confrontation. Unlike the intifada ten years ago, however, the children are integrated into the battle plans of armed Palestinian forces.
25,000 children were trained this summer in Palestinian Authority summer camps in the use of firearms, the making of Molotov cocktails, the methods of kidnapping Israeli leaders, and conducting ambushes - The New York Times,“ Palestinian Summer Camp Offers the Games of War,” By John F. Burns, August 2, 2000

And what is the children’s right infingements that Israel is accused of?

Well the Palestinian site elctronic intifada http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article762.shtml has this accusation -

While UNICEF noted that most Palestinian children have either returned to school or are receiving alternative schooling, it said that more than 226,000 children and over 9,300 teachers are unable to reach their regular classrooms and at least 580 schools have been closed due to Israeli military curfews, closures and home confinement.

UNICEF said Israel has an obligation to ensure education is accessible to every Palestinian child, in accordance with the 4th Geneva Convention and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. As an absolute minimum, mobility restrictions on Palestinian civilians must be lifted throughout the OPT during school hours.

So the lockdown of the area that terror attacks mandate has made getting to their usual schools difficult, most still get to school (better than in lots of the rest of the Arab world mind you) but it is not their regular school. Oh. And Israel should relax its security measures with the expected increase in succesful terror attacks to assure that every child gets to go to their usual school. Okay.

What else? Teenaged children are being held in custody, Children held in custody! Oh my. Kids never get arrested elsewhere. And since teenaged males are the weapon of choice for Palestinian militants it is outrageous that teens are arrested and held. UMhmm.

Honestly, I know that not all of the IDF are good guys. I am sure that abuses do occur and that poor judgements have been made. But given the current situation I do not know how much better of a job Israel can be reasonably expected to do. I’ve passed along this quote in the past. “One cannot fight terror as if human rights do not exist and one cannot defend human rights as if terror does not exist.”

I await the Big Fence and unilateral pull-out.

[MC_Master_of_Ceremonies]

Again you made another arbitary assertation in your post when you talk about child suicide bombers. The youngest suicide bomber was 16 years old and to my knowledge apart from a couple of 17 years old, he is the only suicide bomber that could possibly fit the description of a child.

At least we agree on one thing though, unilateral withdrawl is the best action.

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

I can’t seem to get to a text of the Beijing Women’s Rights Platform, only a reference to it. Damn. So I’m left with my recollection and plea to someone better at googling than I to find it.

FWIW, I have trouble finding this stuff, too. The Resolutions webpage I’ve been using in this thread has a note: “General Assembly resolutions are not published in sequence and may be issued weeks after being adopted. Once published, the resolutions are available in “portable document format” (pdf) through links from this file.”

And I count only a few that are made up into links so far. So somebody somewhere hasn’t put Session 57’s resolutions into PDF format yet and officially posted them online.

And if they don’t even have resolutions from September online, I’m not surprised they don’t have one from December 18 (the Palestinian children) there, either.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/r57.htm

[DSeid]

Here is Human Rights Watch take on the use and recruitmeny of children by Palestinian militants. http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/ISRAELPA1002-05.htm#P939_238764

At least three bombings, however, have been carried out by children-persons under the age of eighteen. At least two have been from the Bethlehem area, and all three attacks were claimed by the al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades. Muhammad Daraghmeh, age seventeen, killed himself and five other children when he carried out a suicide attack for the al-Aqsa Brigades on March 2, 2002, in an orthodox neighborhood of Jerusalem (eleven civilians were killed and almost fifty wounded). In another al-Aqsa Brigades attack in a park in Rishon Letzion on May 22, 2002, Issa Bdeir, age sixteen, killed two civilians and injured at least twenty-four. The third child bomber was Majd Atta, seventeen, who killed himself and injured five others in an attack on a falafel shop in central Jerusalem on July 30, 2002.

On June 28, 2002, an Israeli military court sentenced a sixteen-year-old boy to life imprisonment after he was apprehended in an attempt to blow himself up on or near a bus. At his sentencing, the boy said he had been “deceived” by Hamas into participating in the unsuccessful attack.249 Islamic Jihad acknowledged that to perpetrate a bombing on June 9, 2002 at Megiddo Junction, its members taught Hamza Samudi to drive; his age has been given variously as sixteen, seventeen, and nineteen.250

The participation, acknowledgment, and acceptance of the use of children to perpetrate suicide bombings have continued despite widespread Palestinian unease with such tactics. This unease intensified in April 2002 following three separate incidents in the Gaza Strip in which several Palestinian boys between the ages of fourteen and sixteen were killed as they charged the perimeter of an Israeli settlement armed with knives and crude pipe bombs.

<snip>

Some Hamas leaders have been more forthright about their readiness to recruit children to participate in hostilities. In a “discussion” posted on the `Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades website, Salah Shehadah, the late leader of the militia, was asked how he dealt with the “phenomenon” of “young boys [shabab] seeking martyrdom without approaching any of the military agencies.” He replied, “It is an indicator of the positive consciousness of Palestinian society and not a fault… If some young people are not abiding with the regulations of the military agency and were not officially linked to it, this is proof that the nation of Islam [umma] has become a jihadist umma that refuses disrespect and oppression…” Shehadah goes on to say, that “this trend…could be misused” and that "there is a need to instruct those children [al-ashbal] in a special military section that gives them a jihadist military education so that they can distinguish right from wrong and know when they are capable of carrying out a martyrdom operation and when they should not."0 There have been several reports of segments on PA television that explicitly encourage children to take part in clashes with Israeli forces and extol the virtues of martyrdom.1 In recent months, lively discussion about the effects of such programming on children has taken place in the Palestinian community.2
The PA should take steps to prevent the recruitment and use of persons under eighteen years of age in hostilities. These steps should include adoption of legal measures to prohibit and criminalize such practices, a public education campaign to ensure that this policy is widely communicated, and measures to ensure that materials produced with PA funding, or media outlets supported by PA funding, do not encourage children to participate in military activities.

[CyberPundit]

Like I said human rights groups may define “children” as anyone below the age of 18 but in establishing the magnitude of the “abuse” the age matters. I would question whether 16 and 17 year olds are really “children” in the normal sense of the word. Incidentally the US has the same problem since it allows the recruitment of 17 year olds in the military. That’s why it doesn’t want a treaty banning soldiers under the age of 18. Once again, Israeli military activities which affect Palestinian children of all ages in one way or another belong in another category altogether. So there is no bias if the resolution focussed on them, assuming that they did.

Of course we don't know what , if anything, the resolution says about Israel. I seriously wonder if the columnist in the OP read the resolution herself. She doesn't quote any of it in the article. She appears outraged by the mere fact of a GA resolution expressing concern for Palestinian children.

[DSeid]

From an admittedly very biased source, http://www.wujs.org.il/activist/features/campaigns/israel_and_the_un.shtml this …

The Commission on Human Rights routinely adopts totally disproportionate resolutions concerning Israel. Of all condemnations of this agency, 26 percent refer to Israel alone, while rogue states such as Syria and Libya are never criticized….
In August 2001 the UN held the World Conference Against Racism in Durban. The conference became a front for virulent Antisemitism and anti-Zionism not heard since the days of UN Resolution 3379. Israel and the USA ultimately walked out in protest. Inside and outside the conference hall Jews and Israelis became the targets of hate-filled and politically motivated attacks. Deputy Foreign Minister Rabbi Michael Melchior, representative of the Israeli Government at the conference asked:
“Can there be a greater irony than the fact that a conference convened to combat the scourge of racism should give rise to the most racist declaration in a major international organization since the Second World War?”
In short the UN is and always has been a political and politicised organisation where power is in the hands of those who are able to organise bloc votes. For example, Israel is the only member state of the UN excluded from a regional group. Geographically it should sit on the Asian group but the Arab states have continually denied her access. As such, Israel cannot sit on the Security Council or other key committees. This only changed in May 2000, when Israel accepted an invitation to become a temporary member of the Western European and Others (WEOG) regional group. Even so, Israel’s membership in the WEOG is severely limited. Every four years Israel will have to reapply for membership, since its status is only temporary.
<snip>
Besides these restrictions, Israel is only allowed to participate in WEOG activities in the New York office of the UN. Israel is excluded from WEOG discussion and consultations at the UN offices in Geneva, Nairobi, Rome and Vienna; therefore, Israel cannot participate in UN talks on human rights, racism and a number of other issues handled in these offices. No other country is subject to such restrictions. As US Ambassador to the UN Jean Kirkpatrick has noted
“The UN has the image of a world organization based on universal principles of justice and equality. In reality, when the chips are down, it is nothing other than the executive committee of the Third World dictatorships.”

So what with all the severe human rights abuse committed across the world, Israel and her restriction of travel forcing kids to go to different schools, is worthy of 26% of the output of the UN’s Commission on Human Rights? 26%! And it’s all because they care more about what happens in Israel/Palestine. And that is also why Israel is uniquely denieda seat at the table. Right.

[Scott_Dickerson]

Correct me if I’m wrong…

but isn’t it the case that the UN “officially” regards the 1967 war as a war of aggression on the part of the Israelis?

and that Israel has asserted a right of control over the “disputed territories” that the UN has never formally recognized?

…in which case Israel will always be judged more harshly in matters concerning these territories and their inhabitants, as Israel is viewed as having acted in defiance of the UN.

To mention these points is NOT to imply that the actions of Israel in 1967 were unjustified, nor to suggest that the UN during the height of the Cold War was a bastion of disinterested sweetness and light.

[rampisad]

I confess to, and apologise for, a poor choice of wording in starting this thread. In place of “to the exclusion of” I should have said “out of all proportion to”. I would like to take the Fifth Amendment, but being an ordinary poster to this forum I cannot even take the first! ;j

To CyberPundit (and DDG, who agrees with him)

It is the unfinished business of the UN parition plan of more than 50 years ago.

This is, on its surface, a good point, since it actually attempts to answer the question posed in my OP (which was a genuine question, not a polemic) - Why are Palestinian children unique. However, it does not stand up to logical or historical analysis. In the first place, the Partition plan is not unfinished business. The plan was put to the UN General Assembly, was approved by the necessary two-thirds vote, and was implemented. Subsequently, one of the two parties mentioned saw fit, for whatever reason, not to adhere to the resolution in all its details. This does not leave the matter unique as far as the UN should be concerned. It may, and did, raise further issues for debate and resolution, but they are in no way different from any of the other thousands of matters that have come within the UN’s ambit where one or more of the parties have failed to fulfil the requirements. The issue of Palestine has no special meaning within the context of the UN’s existence, other than for the fact that the majority of members have chosen to make it so, and that is exactly the point of this thread.

The UNHCR is responsible for the welfare of the Palestinian people.

Well yes, but only in as much as they are considered refugees. As you can see from the following …

http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/basics
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was established on December 14, 1950 by the United Nations General Assembly. The agency is mandated to lead and co-ordinate international action to protect refugees and resolve refugee problems worldwide. Its primary purpose is to safeguard the rights and well-being of refugees. It strives to ensure that everyone can exercise the right to seek asylum and find safe refuge in another State, with the option to return home voluntarily, integrate locally or to resettle in a third country.

In more than five decades, the agency has helped an estimated 50 million people restart their lives. Today, a staff of around 5,000 people in more than 120 countries continues to help an estimated 19.8 million persons.

The Mission Statement of the UNHCR contains no specific reference to the Palestinian people.

Next point.
DSeid says …

Meanwhile, as to other resolutions: The security council has indeed also passed resolutions condemning anti-Israel terrorism … specifically #1450 condemning the attacks in Kenya.

Anyone who has taken the time to follow the link in my OP to the article in Globe and Mail will see that the matter of the UN resolution about Kenya is dealt with, and the article points out that this resolution is in fact different in content and timing from others that were passed in response to similar acts of terrorism that did not involve Israel, for no apparent reason.

Lastly, for Scott Dickerson

…in which case Israel will always be judged more harshly in matters concerning these territories and their inhabitants,

But isn’t that bias?

[CyberPundit]

“This does not leave the matter unique as far as the UN should be concerned”
In terms of the UN being involved from the begining of the issue (starting from the UN partition plan) and the magnitude and duration of subsequent UNSC involvement it is pretty close to unique. You forgot to mention the fact that Palestinians aren’t citizens of any state which is also very rare (unique?). Add to that the magnitude and duration of UNHCR humanitartian involvement and you have a truly unique situation. I don’t think there is a single place in the world with all three above factors combined.
D Seid,
With the Commission on Human Rights you are going even lower on the pecking order of UN importance. In any case the issue isn’t whether Israel occasionally gets a raw deal with some two-bit commission passing two-bit resolutions but whether this indicates systematic bias from the UN as a whole. Nothing you have shown indicates this particularly in the light of UN positions on much more substantive issues like the Sheba Farms dispute.

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

A fascinating, if lengthy, peek at the discussions that took place, with speeches at the end.

I found what is possibly a draft of the resolution here. From last May. At least, it’s titled “The situation of and assistance to Palestinian children”, the same as Resolution 57/188.

Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Kuwait, Lebanon,
Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Namibia, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia,
South Africa, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Palestine:
draft resolution

The situation of and assistance to Palestinian children

The General Assembly,

Acting at its twenty-seventh special session on children,

Recalling the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1/

Also recalling the World Declaration on the Survival, Protection and Development of Children and Plan of Action for Implementing the World Declaration on the Survival, Protection and Development of Children in the 1990s, 2/ adopted by the World Summit for Children in 1990,

Concerned that the Palestinian children under Israeli occupation remain deprived of many basic rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child,

Concerned also about the grave recent deterioration of the situation of Palestinian children in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, and about the sever consequences of the continuing Israeli assaults on and sieges of Palestinian cities, towns, villages and refugee camps, resulting in a dire humanitarian situation.

Expressing its condemnation of all acts of violence resulting in extensive loss of human life and injuries, including among Palestinian children,

Deeply concerned about the consequences, including the psychological consequences, of the Israeli military actions on the present and future well-being of Palestinian children,

1. Stresses the urgent need for Palestinian children to live a normal life free from foreign occupation, destruction and fear in their own State;

2. Demands, in the meanwhile, that Israel, the occupying Power, respect relevant provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and comply fully with the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, 3/ in order to ensure the well-being and protection of Palestinian children and their families;

3. Calls upon the international community to provide urgently needed assistance and services in an effort to alleviate the dire humanitarian situation being faced by Palestinian children and their families and to help in the reconstruction of relevant Palestinian institutions.

Notes
1/ Resolution 44/25, annex.
2/ A/45/625, annex.

3/ United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 75, No. 973.

Press release from October here.

Introduction of Drafts

The Committee also had before it a draft text on the situation of and assistance to Palestinian children (document A/C.3/57/L.23), which would have the Assembly stress the need for Palestinian children to live a normal life free from foreign occupation, destruction and fear in their own State. It would have the Assembly therefore demand that Israel, the occupying Power, respect relevant provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and comply fully with the provisions of the fourth Geneva Convention in order to ensure the well-being and protection of Palestinian children and their families.

In her introduction of the draft, the representative of Egypt emphasized the situation of Palestinian children as a result of Israeli incursions. She added that representatives of the Non-Aligned Movement as well as the Observer of Palestine had bowed to the concerns of other delegations and had not submitted the text to the Assembly special session on children, held last May. It was now time to submit the draft to the appropriate body, the Third Committee. She hoped the text would be adopted by consensus.

Right of Reply

A representative of Israel, exercising his right of reply, said he was taking the floor to respond to Egypt’s statement earlier in the day. Egypt was a neighbouring country with which Israel had had a peace treaty since 1979 and to which it had returned all of the Sinai. Egypt’s statement, however, was yet another verbal accusation – pouring oil in the fire rather then supporting a culture of peace. In fact, Egypt’s statement condoned terrorism. Any delegate that drew a distinction between terrorism and the ‘so-called’ resistance endorsed terrorism and encouraged the perpetrators to continue. Israel respected the right to self-determination; however, Israel required equal recognition of its own right to self-determination.

A representative of Egypt, exercising her right to reply, said the Israeli delegate had said there was a need for dialogue and a culture of peace. Egypt had called for peace with Israel in order to put an end a decades-long war. Based on that principle, it was clear that in order to achieve peace in the region, Israel had to take the steps necessary – to give the Palestinian people their right to self-determination. The occupation of the lands of other people was certainly against democracy and a culture of peace. She stressed that Egypt condemned terrorism in all its forms; however, the right to resistance was a legitimate right and must not be lumped together with terrorism.

For information media - not an official record

Press release on the vote here.

15/11/2002

Also this afternoon, a resolution on the situation of and assistance to Palestinian children was approved by a vote of 95 in favour to 3 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, United States), with 58 abstentions.

Under the terms of the draft on assistance to Palestinian children, the Assembly would express its deep concern about the consequences, including psychological consequences, of Israeli military actions on the present and future well-being of Palestinian children. The Assembly would, therefore, demand that Israel, the occupying Power, respect the relevant provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and comply fully with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, in order to ensure the well-being and protection of Palestinian children and their families.

When the Committee continued its consideration of questions related to refugees and displaced persons, delegations expressed strong support for the vital humanitarian field work undertaken by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), but, at the same time, stressed that they were greatly troubled by the agency’s dire financial straits, as well as recent trends affecting donor support.

< snip >

The Committee was expected to take up the draft on the situation of and assistance to Palestinian children (document A/C.3/57/L.23*), which would have the Assembly express its condemnation of all acts of violence resulting in extensive loss of human life and injuries, including among Palestinian children. It would also have the Assembly express its deep concern about the consequences, including psychological consequences, of Israeli military actions on the present and future well-being of Palestinian children. The resolution would have the Assembly demand that Israel, the occupying Power, respect the relevant provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and comply fully with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, in order to ensure the well-being and protection of Palestinian children and their families.

< snip >

Then the Committee took up the draft on the situation of and assistance to Palestinian children (document A/C.3/57/L.23*).

Several delegations took the floor in explanation of vote before the vote.

The representative of Israel said Israel opposed the draft resolution that had been introduced as an initiative of the observer for Palestine – the latest attempt to politicize all United Nations forums and single out Israel. He noted that there was already a resolution on the rights of the child, all children in the world. Given this draft resolution, it seemed as if one group of children was worthier of protection than others. Even in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the draft ignored the terrible effects on Israeli children as a result of terrorism and suicide bombings.

Indeed, a significant number of suicide bombings had deliberately targeted children. Only a few days ago, two children, aged 2 and 5, had been killed by a Palestinian terrorist. Was this legitimate resistance, he asked. With the adoption of such an unfair draft resolution, the Committee would ignore the cynical abuse of children in acts of terrorism, including suicide bombings. The draft resolution failed to show that the threats to the well-being of Palestinian children were the terrorists themselves. He urged Member States to reject such politicized and unbalanced drafts.

The representative of Egypt said that Egypt was the presenter of this resolution, not the observer for Palestine, since they did not have their independence.

The representative of the United States said the United States could not support the draft resolution since it was unbalanced, singled out one party in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and did not reflect the complexity or context of the situation on the ground. For example, the draft resolution ignored the participation, acknowledgement and acceptance of the use of Palestinian children to perpetrate suicide bombings by groups such as the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade – despite widespread Palestinian unease with such tactics.

According to Amnesty International, Palestinian Authority television programming had explicitly encouraged children to take part in clashes with Israeli forces and extolled the virtues of “martyrdom”. The United States was deeply concerned about the situation of all Palestinian and Israeli children; however, the omnibus resolution on the Rights of the Child included the situation of children in armed conflict and addressed the plight and concern of all children, regardless of where they lived.

A recorded vote was requested.

The draft resolution was approved by a vote of 95 in favour to 3 against (Marshall Islands, the United States and Israel), with 58 abstentions. (See Annex II.)

Following the vote, the representative of Denmark, speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, said her delegation had abstained from the vote. The member countries of the European Union had done so because they did not support the proliferation of resolutions on agenda items where the Committee had traditionally not dealt separately with country-specific situations. The European Union continued to support the practice whereby thematic resolutions were all-encompassing and did not highlight one situation or another. That was the most efficient way for the Assembly to do business. Her delegation would have been pleased to vote in favour of the issue if the needs of Palestinian children had been incorporated into one of the existing resolutions on the Middle East.

Regarding the draft’s substance, the European Union had consistently expressed its concern about the deteriorating humanitarian situation in the West Bank and Gaza, and had been particularly concerned by recent disturbing reports of how the health of Palestinian children had been affected by the worsening crisis. If there was, indeed, to be peace in the future, and neighbourly relations between the parties, children needed to live in peace. They should not be involved in the conflict, nor taught hate. Israel and the Palestinian Authority had to do more to fulfil their responsibilities in those respects.

The representative of Australia said the resolution just approved covered specific regional issues, and his delegation believed it should not have been tabled under thematic items on children. The resolution was also unbalanced, as it reflected only on the actions of Israel and did not reflect the situations that existed on the ground. Australia would continue to urge both sides to work towards a diplomatic solution to the situation.

The representative of Turkey said his country’s position on the ongoing conflict was well known by both parties, with which Turkey enjoyed good diplomatic relations. Turkey deplored all acts of violence, particularly those involving children, and would continue to support any actions to end such violence.

The representative of Canada said his country had consistently supported all actions to alleviate the suffering of children in armed conflict. It had not supported the resolution because the text did not reflect the terrible toll of the continued conflict on Israeli children, as well as Palestinian children. Canada called on all parties to continue to work towards a diplomatic solution, so that all the children of the region could live in peace.

The representative of Cameroon said her delegation was particularly concerned at the situation of children suffering in the Middle East, and would call on both sides to work to ensure that Palestinian and Israeli children lived a life in security and free from fear.

The representative of the Russian Federation said his delegation had voted for the resolution, despite the fact that the text dealt selectively with the issue, out of its unstinting concern for the situation of all children in conflict situations.

The representative of Switzerland said her delegation had abstained from the vote. Switzerland regretted the situation of all children in conflict and particularly recognized the situation of Palestinian children. However, it would have wished that the issue had been taken up in other texts under more appropriate items. Switzerland would also note that the elements of the text applied to all children and that all parties to conflict must abide by the Geneva Conventions.

The representative of India believed that the resolution should have been taken up under another agenda item.

The Observer for Palestine expressed his deep appreciation to all delegations who had chosen to support the resolution. However, he failed to understand the position of some who had not been in favour, since there were not enough reasons to withhold support. Previous speakers had referred to Palestinian attempts to single out Israel. That was not Palestine’s intention. However, Israel’s actions of the past years had led to the fact that Israel had singled out itself. Israel was the only occupying country in the world and was engaged in active colonialism, affecting not only Palestinian children but the Palestinian people as a whole. That kind of resolution could not be balanced – the realities reflected a completely unbalanced situation. There was no way parallels could be drawn between the occupied and the occupier. The Palestinian child had a little bit more hope for a better future because of the message sent by the Committee today.

The representative of Suriname said the only reason the resolution deserved a positive approach was that it served the best interest of children, in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which called for the protection of children all over the world, including the Middle East.

Right of Reply

The representative of Israel, exercising his right of reply, expressed his dismay and outrage, since the Palestinian delegate was speaking with complete impunity when, at this exact moment, there were 11 dead bodies lying in Hebron. Those people had been killed on their way to pray, and had been brutally massacred. That was a fact, and in the face of that fact he would have thought that the Palestinian observer would have offered his regret, instead of coming out with baseless accusations.

The Observer for Palestine, speaking in right of reply, said he had become accustomed to hearing such things from Israel. The Palestinian leadership regretted any loss of life. However, it was important to state that Hebron was a city occupied by Israel. What were those Israelis doing in Hebron, he asked. There were about 400 Israeli religious fanatics in Hebron, engaging in the colonization of the city, making life for Palestinians a nightmare. That was an illegal occupation and the responsibility, therefore, lay with Israel. One must be sick to accept the settlers and colonizers in Hebron; in such situations, extreme reactions were seen, and were understood and legitimate under international law. The problem was the Israeli occupation, which must come to an end.

The representative of Israel said he wished to inform his Palestinian colleague that with the complete end of Palestinian terrorism there would be negotiations and then a peace settlement, including Israeli withdrawal. This was the path that the Palestinians should take, instead of exercising terror. He indicated that, in Israel, it was expected that the Palestinian Authority should not only speak of denouncing terrorism, but should act as well.

The Observer for Palestine said the first acts of violence that were terrorist in nature took place more than 20 years ago – the occupation. It was the occupation that had caused the violence, not vice versa. Was Israel willing to end its occupation, he asked. Was the Israeli delegate ready to condemn Israeli war crimes committed against the Palestinian people, he asked. Was he ready to accept the self-determination of the Palestinian people?

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

How the voting actually went, from the end of the same link.

The draft resolution on assistance to Palestinian children (document A/C.3/57/L.23*) was adopted by a recorded vote of 95 in favour to 3 against, with 58 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Eritrea, Gambia, Ghana, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, Marshall Islands, United States.

Abstaining: Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Yugoslavia.

Absent: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Madagascar, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Uzbekistan.

[rampisad]

CyberPundit

Please explain why Sheba Farms is seen by you as such a substantial indicator of the UN’s evenhanded treatment of Israeli issues. To my thinking, it is special only because it is the one time AFAIK that the august body has made a decision that could be construed as being favorable to Israel’s interests, instead of the kneejerk that most (?all) previous resolutions had led us to expect.

As for your answer to my post, I think you are using circular reasoning here. The Palestine issue has been central to the UN because it has been central to the UN? And where in the UN Charter does it say that stateless people are a matter of special concern?
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

Taking you up on your use of the duration of the Palestinian issue as justifying ipso facto its unique status, I draw to your attention the fact that Tibet has been under direct Chinese occupation since 1959, in other words for longer than Palestinians have been in such a state (and I am using the word occupation very loosely in regard to the latter, since there are many sustainable arguments that the situation does not legally constitute an occupation). Can you point out the number of resolutions about condemning China that were passed in the last session of the UN, in keeping with the proportion that were passed condemning Israel.