Committee on Rights on Child examines report of Israel under Optional Protocol on Children and Armed Conflict

The Committee on the Rights of the Child today reviewed the initial report of Israel on how that country is implementing the provisions of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict.

Presenting the report, Daniel Taub, Senior Deputy Legal Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel, said that protecting their children and providing them with the best possible opportunities in life was the guiding objective of every parent. It was one of Israel’s prime motivations in reaching out to make peace with their neighbours, and when no other choice was available, in defending their families from violence and terrorism. The Government of Israel was committed to advancing the protection of children in every sphere. This effort was clearly a work in progress, with much left to do. But in recent years they felt they had made some important further steps. There had been an increased focus on children’s rights, and on the need to raise public awareness and involvement in the enhancement of children’s well-being.

One of the most critical and important elements in the long-term protection of the rights of the child was education about peace and tolerance, said Mr. Taub. This was important in the long-term relations between Israelis, Palestinians and Arabs in general. For close to two years he had served himself as the head of the Israeli side of the Culture of Peace track of negotiations in the peace process, working together with Palestinians to try to create an environment which would be conducive to peace taking root. Realising a transformation in attitudes in both societies required a paradigm shift in education – education for peace, understanding, respect and tolerance of the other. Ongoing efforts to bring Israeli and Arab children together, through youth projects, seminars and summer camps were of prime importance.

In preliminary concluding remarks, Committee Expert Luigi Citarella, who served as Rapporteur for the report of Israel, said that the report had not given enough information on the actual implementation of the Optional Protocol in Israel, but today’s discussion had shed some light on it. One of the issues remaining was the issue of the application of the Optional Protocol in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Peace was the best way to ensure the rights of children everywhere.

Other Committee Experts raised questions and made comments on issues related to, among other things, the statement made by Israel in all international fora on the inapplicability of the Convention beyond the territory of Israel. This declaration was however contrary to international law, as the Convention was applicable in all territories where the State party exercised jurisdiction and therefore also included the Occupied Palestinian Territories, noted an Expert. Among other issues Experts raised were the age difference between the definition of a Palestinian and an Israeli child; the impact on children of the illegal occupation of Palestinian territory; the disproportionate use of force by the Israeli Defense Forces during Operation Cast Lead; the disturbing effects of the Separation Wall on students’ circulation; the fact that persons at the age of 17 were designated and called for military service and that persons below 18 might be recruited to combat units; the status of students of religious schools which combined military service with Talmudic studies; the purpose of military schools for children between 13.5 and 18 years of age; the detention of Palestinian children under military orders; and whether non-State armed groups existed in Israel.

The Committee will release its formal, written concluding observations and recommendations on the report of Israel towards the end of its three-week session which will conclude on Friday, 29 January.

The delegation of Israel also included representatives from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Defense and the Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

When the Committee reconvenes in public at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 21 January, it will take up the combined third and fourth periodic reports of El Salvador in Chamber A (Palais Wilson – Ground Floor) and the fourth periodic report of Norway in Chamber B (Palais Wilson – First Floor).

Report of Israel

The initial report of Israel (CRC/C/OPAC/ISR/1) under the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict says that the minimum age in which the State of Israel permits voluntary recruitment into its armed forces is 17 years of age and that no person under 18 years of age may enlist in the Israeli armed forces without a written application submitted by the person and the written consent of the person’s parents or legal guardian. The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) has several long-term programmes in which participants may engage in academic or rabbinic studies or perform volunteer work, prior to the commencement of their actual military service. Enrolment in these programmes is open to participants from the age of 17 and a half. Persons under 18 years of age, who enlist in one of the aforementioned ways, may in no case be posted to combat duty. Further, there are no legal options to lower the recruitment age, in times of emergency and those who are not designated for service, but wish to do so, may assist in the performance of non-military activities that shall not constitute direct participation in hostilities. Military justice and discipline laws apply, inter alia, to those volunteering for service aged 17-18.

The IDF also has several schools and programmes designated for youths aged 13.5-18, where specific professional and military professions are taught. Some schools operate as boarding schools, and some as daily schools. The IDF operates 6 military schools that provide schooling for three to four years. As of March 2007, these schools had a total of 2,766 pupils. In addition to specialized training, IDF-operated schools abide by the same curriculum as every other school in the Israeli educational system. Except for specific military style training, and during their basic training, pupils in the school do not receive or carry arms. The pupils in these schools are not soldiers and the provisions of the Military Jurisdiction Law do not apply to them. In times of emergency, pupils over 16 may engage in civil aid activities, of a non-military capacity such as assisting in hospitals, local municipalities, schools, etc. Pupils in IDF operated schools are allowed to quit school any time they so desire. Discipline in IDF-operated schools includes certain limitations, mostly similar to those imposed in civilian high schools/boarding schools.

Presentation of Report

DANIEL TAUB, Senior Deputy Legal Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel, said that this was Israel’s first appearance following its ratification of the Optional Protocol. Protecting their children and providing them with the best possible opportunities in life was the guiding objective of every parent. It was one of Israel’s prime motivations in reaching out to make peace with their neighbours, and when no other choice was available, in defending their families from violence and terrorism.

The Government of Israel was committed to advancing the protection of children in every sphere, said Mr. Taub. This effort was clearly a work in progress, with much left to do. But in recent years they felt they had made some important further steps. There had been an increased focus on children’s rights, and on the need to raise public awareness and involvement in the enhancement of children’s well-being. The Optional Protocol added another important layer.

For several decades now, Israel’s executive, judicial and parliamentary branches had been working closely with non-governmental organizations, and with children themselves, said Mr. Taub. Since becoming a Party to the Convention, Israel had undertaken a number of far-reaching reforms. In particular, the past few decades had been marked by the passage of extensive legislation relating to children.

One of the most critical and important elements in the long-term protection of the rights of the child was education about peace and tolerance, said Mr. Taub. This was important in the long-term relations between Israelis, Palestinians and Arabs in general. For close to two years he had served himself as the head of the Israeli side of the Culture of Peace track of negotiations in the peace process, working together with Palestinians to try to create an environment in their media, schoolbooks and public space which would be conducive to peace taking root.

Realising a transformation in attitudes in both societies required a paradigm shift in education – education for peace, understanding, respect and tolerance of the other. Ongoing efforts to bring Israeli and Arab children together, through youth projects, seminars and summer camps were of prime importance, said Mr. Taub.

One of the harsher aspects of the ongoing armed conflict could be found in the rising number of children that had fallen victims to the hostilities – losing life, limb and becoming orphaned. The State of Israel spared no effort in providing these children and their families with monetary remuneration and various benefits. In 2008 alone, the Israeli National Insurance Institute had granted benefits to the families of 246 deceased children, 479 orphaned children and 132 disabled children, all due to hostilities, said Mr. Taub.

Also, Israel had granted asylum to several former child soldiers who had come to Israel after having been involved in civil wars that had occurred in West Africa, said Mr. Taub. These minors had been granted the status of refugees and had been provided with psychotherapy.

Discussion

LUIGI CITARELLA, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Israel, welcomed the fact that civil society in Israel had been involved in the drafting of the State party’s report. The report, however, had a very legalistic approach and was lacking factual information to a great extent. Such information would allow the Committee to get a picture of what was really happening to children in everyday-life.

The Committee further took note of the statement made by the State party in the report and made by Israel in all international fora on the inapplicability of the Convention beyond the territory of Israel. This declaration was however contrary to international law, said Mr. Citarella, as the Convention was applicable in all territories where the State party exercised jurisdiction and therefore also included the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

In its previous recommendations, the Committee had recommended that Israel review the definition of a child and the fact that it was set at 18 years of age for Israeli children and 16 for Palestinian children. This was a flagrant violation of the principle of non-discrimination, said Mr. Citarella.

The Committee recognized the climate of fear and the deliberate and indiscriminate targeting and killing of Israeli civilians, including children by Palestinian armed groups. At the same time, the Committee observed that the illegal occupation of Palestinian territory, the disproportionate use of force by the Israeli Defense Forces and the demolition of homes and schools lacked all proportionality and had a particular devastating impact on children. In this regard, the Committee noted the findings of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, presented in September 2009, said Mr. Citarella.

Mr. Citarella also noted the disturbing effects on circulation and movement after the building of the Separation Wall, particularly for students. This resulted in the denial of access to education.

YANGHEE LEE, the Committee Expert serving as co-Rapporteur for the report of Israel, said that the Committee noted that the State party required both men and women to perform obligatory military service and that persons at the age of 17 were designated and called for military service. This was a clear contravention to Article 2 of the Optional Protocol. Noting that persons below 18 might be recruited to combat units, could the delegation clarify which safeguards were available to prevent children from directly participating in hostilities? Furthermore, it appeared that a person between 17 and 18 years might be enlisted for combat duty, in very extreme times of State emergency.

The Committee also wished to get clarification regarding the status of students of religious schools which combined military service with Talmudic studies, said Ms. Lee. At what age could boys enrol in such schools? What sort of curricula applied to these schools?

Besides the military academies, the Israeli Defense Forces ran military schools for children between 13.5 and 18 years of age. This was a matter of deep concern for the Committee, said Ms. Lee, as it seemed that in these schools, military matters were being taught and the discipline was administered by military personnel. What was the purpose of these schools?

Ms. Lee also said that the Committee had information that the “Willingness to Serve and Readiness for the Israeli Defense Forces” was mandatory in the high school curriculum and that students spent one week stationed on an active military base. Training with rifles and other military exercises was of concern to the Committee. Could the delegation also elaborate on the recruitment of children serving in the Border Police?

Most of the concerns regarding violation of children’s rights under the Optional Protocol were committed in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, said Ms. Lee. Allegedly, more than 2,000 Palestinian children, some as young as twelve, continued to be detained under military orders and prosecuted in military courts. Could the delegation provide more information on the military orders which allowed for the arrest and detention of Palestinian children? The Committee was furthermore concerned that children were charged with security offences which lacked a clear definition and proportional sentencing. It was also concerned that children charged with security offences were subjected to prolonged periods of solitary confinement and abuse in inhumane and degrading conditions and that family visits were not possible.

Other Experts raised a series of questions pertaining to, among other things, the age at which a child could be forced to enlist into the military and how it was ensured that no child could be forced to participate to hostilities. Was the State party planning to raise the minimum age for forced and voluntary enlistment into the military? Had the State party collaborated with the United Nations Secretary-General’s Special Representative for children and armed conflicts? Could the delegation elaborate on the issue of arrest and detention of Palestinian child soldiers?

Turning to the Syrian Golan, one Expert noted the many children there had become victims of mines. What preventive measures had been taken by Israel to de-mine these civilian areas and to pay reparation to the victims? One Expert noted that no support was given to the children affected by the hostilities in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Another Expert asked questions on the existence of non-State armed groups which might recruit children under 18 in Israel. What sentences would the law provide for this? Did such groups exist, despite the fact that they were forbidden? The Committee had received information that such groups existed and were operating with impunity.

Further, what was done to prevent attacks against civilian targets such as hospitals and schools? An Expert said that the Committee was still very affected by the Cast Lead Operation, as many children had suffered and continued to suffer from this conflict. What was the criminal responsibility for such acts? Were perpetrators brought to justice?

Responses by Delegation

Responding to these questions and others, the delegation said, on the formal applicability of the Convention beyond the border of Israel, that they knew they did not share the same opinion as the Committee on this issue. It was not necessarily helpful to try to stretch the applicability of Human Rights Conventions. The dilemmas and threats Israel faced had made them take this decision. The delegation also cited an article of the encyclopaedia of international law which said that the antagonism that formally existed between humanitarian and human rights law did not justify the merging of both. However, they believed in transparency and the delegation said they would be happy to answer the issues relating to the Occupied Palestinian Territories orally.

On the difference of the age of minority between Israeli legislation and the legislation applicable in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the delegation indicated that the age of criminal responsibility was of 12 years in Israel and in the West Bank. In the West Bank, it had even been raised from 9 to 12 years when Israel had taken control of this territory.

Further, the delegation said that legislation gave minors, within the West Bank, more protection than to Israeli children in Israel, as in the West Bank there were a series of restrictions with regard to sentencing. A child under the age of 12 years was not criminally liable at all in the West Bank. This also was the case in Israel. Children between 12 and 14 years could not be sentenced for periods longer than 6 months and children between 14 and 16 years for not more than for one year in the West Bank; this did not apply in Israel.

Any arrest of a minor required the direct approval of a judge-advocate, who had the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel or higher. Further, minors up to the age of 16 could not be detained in military facilities and had to be detained in civil facilities, noted the delegation.

The delegation further stated that a Military Juvenile Court had recently been opened in the West Bank. This was the result of the fact that there were a large number of youngsters involved in very violent activities such as the transport of weapons and suicide bombs; digging tunnels for weapon transport; or to serve as lookouts during terrorist attacks. In other instances, schools had been used for launching rocket attacks.

Children had also been recruited by terrorist organizations, said the delegation. This had taken place through the media and cartoons encouraging children to become suicide bombers. Hamas had been running some 700 summer camps, where youngsters were trained in weapons use. Films of kindergartens had shown their final closing party was to act out the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. There were several minors who wanted to commit suicide attacks or who wanted to stab Israelis.

All this had created the necessity of finding appropriate legal responses. The delegation recognized that a Military Juvenile Court was somewhat an innovation, but Israel would ensure that it responded to international standards. This Military Juvenile Court would run for a one-year trial period.

Turning to Operation Cast Lead, the delegation said that Israel had made efforts to warn the civil population by dropping leaflets and making phone calls asking the population to leave the areas where the Israeli Defense Forces were planning operations. However, in several cases Hamas had rounded up dozens of children and women to bring them on the roof top of the targeted buildings. Many operations had been cancelled because of such practices.

Immediately after Operation Cast Lead, Israel had started investigations into the damage caused to hospitals and United Nations buildings. Hundreds of other incidents that had happened were still under investigation. This had led up until now to 31 criminal prosecutions. Detailed reports on these cases would soon be issued, said the delegation.

On administrative detention, this was regrettably necessary in the situation Israeli currently was in, said the delegation. It was extremely rarely used for minors and currently and there were no minors in administrative detention facilities. In the event of a minor being in administrative detention, this had to be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Turning to the Security Barrier, the delegation said that its construction had been decided after a year where 37 terrorist attacks had happened. Anyone visiting Israel today could not but be struck by the fact that suicide attacks had dropped from the list of major threats thanks to the Security Barrier. However it was clear that it created several humanitarians problems. The Supreme Court was looking into the matter and hundreds of petitions had been lodged to it.

On the question of mines in the Golan Heights, Israel was making extensive efforts to mark and fence off these areas, said the delegation. However it always happen that Arab, Christian and Jewish children went into these areas. When such an accident happened it was recognized as a tragedy by Israel and the Government.

Turning back to Operation Cast Lead, the delegation said that the fact that there were 20,000 militants, hundreds of tunnels smuggling heavy-duty weaponry, and 12,000 missiles fired from the Gaza Strip onto schools, kindergartens and power plants in Israel had inevitably created a situation where a densely-populated area had become the target of a military operation. There were no easy answers in such conditions and the terrorist organizations had adopted tactics to gain the most possible support from the international community.

Turning to military schools, the delegation said students in these schools were not members of the Israeli Defense Forces and military justice law did not apply to them.

Regarding the one-week training for schoolchildren, this was not compulsory and there were children who did not take part in military activities during this training, said the delegation.

Concerning the question of the age of military enlistment, the delegation said that children aged 17 years only had to do an administrative registration which lasted one day. Youngsters would then not go back to the army before their military training. There was no situation where a person under 18 could take part in combat duty as no person would finish military training before the age of 18.

On recruitment in the border police, the delegation said the age limitation was 18 years, similar to that in the Israeli Defense Forces.

On the issue of human shields, the delegation said that there was an absolute prohibition in the Israeli Defense forces to use civilians in such a capacity. In the course of the conflict in Gaza, there had been a number of allegations that soldiers had behaved inappropriately. Several such cases were under investigation.

Hamas however had made use of ambulances and hospitals. Bottles of medicine had even been turned into small grenades. The fact that the humanitarian windows had been used by Hamas to fire missiles had made the whole situation extremely complicated, said the delegation.

Turning to the issue of white phosphorous, it had been used at the beginning of the conflict, but its use was discontinued later in the conflict after a decision by the Chief of Staff, the delegation said. What they had however continued to use were smoke munitions, which had had effects that had not been anticipated. Investigations had also been carried out on this issue.

Preliminary Observations

LUIGI CITARELLA, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Israel, in preliminary concluding remarks, thanked the delegation for the extensive discussion. As he had said the report did not given enough information on the actual implementation of the Optional Protocol in Israel, but the discussion had shed some light on it. One of the issues remaining was the issue of the application of the Optional Protocol in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Peace was the best way to ensure the rights of children everywhere.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record