Palestinian girl, 14, in Israel prison for throwing rocks

[kieran2698]

My posts on this subject are backed by facts, proven figures and documented history. You, on the other hand, never have a word to say about blatant lies posted on this forum as long as they bash Israel and make excuses and justifications for the Islamic terrorist groups that are their enemies. That is a different kind of "one sided" and far worse.

Nonsense, you just compared Israeli children being cautioned to Palestinian children being locked up

Please drop the stupid spin. Another poster suggested that NO Israeli children had been jailed up AT ALL, when the facts are that 53 were locked up within a few years. They were not just "warned" or "cautioned" You are making things up. They were ARRESTED.

I have never read of a settler child or indeed a settler being locked up for stone throwing.

A caution is a kind of charge and follows an arrest, it is not possible to be cautioned without being arrested first. This is the UK legal term for what happened to all of the Israeli child stone throwers arrested who were not released without charge.

I would say that it is you with the ridiculous spin by focusing on the semantics of "locked-up" and ignoring the intended meaning; that there are Palestinian children serving life for throwing stones whilst the worst that has ever happened to an Israeli child is being arrested and then let go.

The reason for this is that according to Israeli law anyone under the age of 18 is not "criminally responsible", the actions of an Israeli child can never result in more than an official warning. But, Israel doesn't rule Palestine with Israeli law, they rule them with military law under which a child of 12 is held criminally responsible. There is no other country in the world that puts children before a military court.

[Jingthing]

... that there are Palestinian children serving life for throwing stones ...

So Palestinian "children" are in jail "for life" only for throwing a stone?

That is very hard to believe.

Do you mean in cases where their stone throwing turns out to be murder and the target dies?

BTW, I think this Israeli girl was referred to before in this thread in a video.

She had been severely brain damaged "just" from a Palestinian stone thrower.

Now, very sadly, those injuries have resulted in her death.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Jingthing

[siampolee]

Sadly in truth people like the lock the Palestinian children up proponents in their own xenophobic myopic ways are in truth on a par with child abusers

[Jingthing]

I don't think anyone here has advocated locking up innocent Palestinian children. The question is about criminally violent behavior which yes can potentially kill and who is to say that many of the wee stone throwers don't actually INTEND to kill?

Edited February 19, 2015 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

So that's "life", is it? Interesting.

Those were not innocent acts.

Also I realize people get sentimental about young age, but it is common in this conflict for the very young to be active combatants. Similar to recently in Gaza, a large number of those being claimed as PR to the world as innocent child victims were actually legitimate active military targets. It's also interesting that the Israeli demonizers seem to ignore the hundreds of child victims of the Palestinians themselves, such as the tunnel builders, largely young boys ... death rates very high.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

The reason for this is that according to Israeli law anyone under the age of 18 is not "criminally responsible", the actions of an Israeli child can never result in more than an official warning.

This is your usual dishonest nonsense. Israeli law states that Israeli children 14 and older can be incarcerated and they often are for serious crimes. Why do so many of the Israel-haters feel the need to lie to make their case?

Neither Israeli nor Palestinian children under the age of 12 can be held to be criminally responsible - there is no legal option of prosecuting young children, regardless of their offense. They may be held for short periods to stop them in the act, but cannot be tried in a criminal court. The age of criminal responsibility for Israeli and Palestinians children is the same. THOSE are the facts.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Scott]

Numerous posts removed and more than one member on suspension.

Stay on topic and stop with inflammatory remarks and baiting others.

[Jingthing]

Well, I would expect there are differences in treatment. That is one of many legitimate grievances of Palestinians in the West Bank. But rock throwing ... it makes things worse. Nobody is claiming the status quo there is the best of all possible worlds.

[Seastallion]

I don't think anyone here has advocated locking up innocent Palestinian children. The question is about criminally violent behavior which yes can potentially kill and who is to say that many of the wee stone throwers don't actually INTEND to kill?

The question is actually about why criminally violent settler children, ( and who is to say that many of the wee stone throwers don't actually INTEND to kill? ) don't get sentences equivalent to Palestinian stone throwers.

[Ulysses G.]

No one has produced any evidence that "criminally violent settler children" don't get sentences equivalent to Palestinian stone throwers. Supposition is not proof.

[Jingthing]

Well it is rather a zone of conflict. Should Israel leave the west bank though which is quite unlikely anytime soon it's not as if that would magically end the conflict.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Seastallion]

Well it is rather a zone of conflict. Should Israel leave the west bank though which is quite unlikely anytime soon it's not as if that would magically end the conflict.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

It would be a start.

[Morch]

Yes, to the OP...it would be interesting to hear from people what they make of the "Israelis torturing non-Jewish children" video documentary above. It's directly associated with the subject of the OP.

Any excuses? Any denials? Any justifications?

I ask because I don't want to blindly believe a documentary that although appearing even-handed, may be biased or false.

What do you make of it?

How does the so-called documentary even appear to be even-handed?

Take away the dramatic ominous sounds effects, the almost totally one-sided presentation of details, and the factual errors which are incorporated and things may look somewhat different. Not great, mind, but perhaps not as clear cut and evil as is claimed.

All of the Palestinian accounts and testimonies are presented as factual, without any visible attempt to verify claims. If someone says he did nothing, it is accepted without question. If someone claims to have been tortured, it is regarded without doubts. How does accepting one side's views at face value contribute to even-handedness?

Related Palestinian violence is only acknowledged about half way through the documentary. And even then, it mainly serves as driving a pro-Palestinian point home. Until then, it's all innocent Palestinians kids vs. Evil IDF and illegal Jewish settlers. This is not a truthful representation of reality - that is, unless one believes that no stones were ever thrown, and no harm was done.

At now time does the documentary raise the question of parental responsibility. Not even a free pass or explaining it away, it just not part of the program. It is deemed as irrelevant. The kids are not responsible, the parents are not responsible, everyone is so very passive.

Hebron is a flashpoint, probably one of the worst places in terms of friction between the IDF, settlers and Palestinians. Do similar incidents happen all over the West Bank? Yes. Does the situation in Hebron represent the daily reality in all parts of the West Bank? Perhaps not as accurately as the documentary implies.

There are claims raised regarding coerced confessions. It is not mentioned that in both Israeli civil and military justice systems a conviction cannot be made solely on the force of confession. There are claims made regarding torture. It is not supported by any proof other than the claims themselves. There are claims made that the kids are clearly traumatized. It is not quite evident from the documentary that they are. None of them seems to be reluctant to talk about their experiences and the accounts sound well rehearsed rather than displaying severe emotional hardship at the retelling.

At one point an Israeli lawyer (Gaby Laski) claims that Israel is trying to fight the non-violent movement by violent means. There are no questions raised as to what she's on about. What non-violent movement is targeted? Does stone throwing fall outside the sphere of violent actions? The documentary brings forth Bassem al-Tamimi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bassem_al-Tamimi), as an advocate of non-violent resistance, but again, no relevant questions are raised as to Tamimi's views on stone throwing:

“We see our stones as our message,” Bassem explained. The message they carried, he said, was “We don’t accept you.” While Bassem spoke admiringly of Mahatma Gandhi, he didn’t worry over whether stone-throwing counted as violence. The question annoyed him: Israel uses far greater and more lethal force on a regular basis, he pointed out, without being asked to clarify its attitude toward violence. If the loincloth functioned as the sign of Gandhi’s resistance, of India’s nakedness in front of British colonial might, Bassem said, “Our sign is the stone.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/magazine/is-this-where-the-third-intifada-will-start.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

While there is a very brief mention of his family connection with Ahlam Tamimi - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlam_Tamimi , there is no explanation how the previously detailed Hebron arrests could target Tamimi, a resident of Nabi Salih (which is near Ramallah).

Ofer Prison is not a military prison, but run by the Israeli Prison Service since 2006 (there is a military court facility attached). No conceivable way that the maker of the documentary is not aware of this.

Daniella Weiss gets quite a bit of screen time in this documentary. There is no mention that her actions and views are considered to be extreme even for many of the settlers, but she can be counted upon for the provocative statement, so obviously a candidate of choice. Overall, the documentary focuses on the Palestinian narrative (or rather, what it presents as the Palestinian narrative), without much by way of debate or discussion. Most of the other Israeli speakers are actually members of left wing organizations which are sympathetic to the Palestinian narrative (to a point where they ignore certain realities).

The story regarding Israel holding Palestinian children in outdoor cages was debunked, and all relevant parties which carried it (NGOs and Media) published amendments and corrections. That is, apart from the Jerusalem Post. The original statement, by the way, referred to banning such a practice, which was generally directed at Israeli criminal suspects. Again, unlikely that the makers of the documentary were unaware of this.

The IDF jurisdiction over the Jewish settlers is a murky area. Often, soldiers are faced with situations which are ill defined and exceed their regulations and orders. The "tribal" element surely plays a part for some, but definitely not all - even without being

supportive of organizations such as "Breaking the Silence" there are quite often expressions of resentment toward the settlers behavior. Goes down to army not being the same thing as police, most armies are ill equipped to deal with such situations on a prolonged basis.

There are serious issues rightly raised by the Palestinians with regard to arrests of minors, and I cannot say that the answers and reasons provided by Israel are all compelling or very convincing Then again, not buying into the Palestinian narrative (at least as it is presented in this documentary) hook, line and sinker. The situation is far more complex than presented, and there are many dilemmas involved - yet only some are discussed. Rather than exploring the complexities, the documentary provides simple formulations and simple answers. I'm sure it appeals for some.

As an aside - on another running topic, certain members denounced the findings by an NGO on the grounds that they were self serving, exaggerated, blowing things out of proportion and out of context. Is this a general view regarding all such organizations or does the criticism apply only for organizations which support positions opposed to those of said posters?

I see that some of the previous linked to criticism of the documentary published on camera.org - while I am aware that this may not be the source of choice (certainly as far as some posters are concerned), the two or three articles in question actually hold quite a bit of factual detail regarding inaccuracies found in the documentary.

[Morch]

No one has produced any evidence that "criminally violent settler children" don't get sentences equivalent to Palestinian stone throwers. Supposition is not proof.

The issue is more to do with how different law systems define offenses.

Under the martial law, the definitions are much broader and there is relatively less leniency (although not to the degree assumed by some). Under civil law, defendants have more protections and legal provisions - and the judges got more leeway when passing sentences.

I can't recall that you provided any evidence to the effect that actual sentences and punishments meted were similar both in terms of prevalence and severity.

[Ulysses G.]

That is because I could not find any information on the civil law - concerning juveniles that have committed crimes - at all - other than a few snippets that I already posted. There are plenty of things that are still very difficult to research on the Internet and - unless I was using the wrong search terms - that seems to be one of them.

Anyway, as far as I am concerned, it is up to the person who made the accusation to provide proof of their charges and that was the poster that I was replying to. HE was the one claiming something with no evidence to back it up.

The question is actually about why criminally violent settler children, (and who is to say that many of the wee stone throwers don't actually INTEND to kill) don't get sentences equivalent to Palestinian stone throwers?

Edited February 20, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Morch]

Well it is rather a zone of conflict. Should Israel leave the west bank though which is quite unlikely anytime soon it's not as if that would magically end the conflict.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

It would be a start.

That's an assumption based on taking certain Palestinian positions (which are not shared by all) at face value, and adding a very healthy dose of optimism.

As a modified, humbler, version - perhaps it would indeed ease some tensions if Israel cleared the settlers from places such as Hebron, to begin with. Probably one of the most troublesome places as far as incidents between Israelis and Palestinians go. That's the only major Palestinian town in the West Bank which still got significant and permanent Israeli presence in its midst.

[Seastallion]

Yes, to the OP...it would be interesting to hear from people what they make of the "Israelis torturing non-Jewish children" video documentary above. It's directly associated with the subject of the OP.

Any excuses? Any denials? Any justifications?

I ask because I don't want to blindly believe a documentary that although appearing even-handed, may be biased or false.

What do you make of it?

How does the so-called documentary even appear to be even-handed?

Take away the dramatic ominous sounds effects, the almost totally one-sided presentation of details, and the factual errors which are incorporated and things may look somewhat different. Not great, mind, but perhaps not as clear cut and evil as is claimed.

All of the Palestinian accounts and testimonies are presented as factual, without any visible attempt to verify claims. If someone says he did nothing, it is accepted without question. If someone claims to have been tortured, it is regarded without doubts. How does accepting one side's views at face value contribute to even-handedness?

Related Palestinian violence is only acknowledged about half way through the documentary. And even then, it mainly serves as driving a pro-Palestinian point home. Until then, it's all innocent Palestinians kids vs. Evil IDF and illegal Jewish settlers. This is not a truthful representation of reality - that is, unless one believes that no stones were ever thrown, and no harm was done.

At now time does the documentary raise the question of parental responsibility. Not even a free pass or explaining it away, it just not part of the program. It is deemed as irrelevant. The kids are not responsible, the parents are not responsible, everyone is so very passive.

Hebron is a flashpoint, probably one of the worst places in terms of friction between the IDF, settlers and Palestinians. Do similar incidents happen all over the West Bank? Yes. Does the situation in Hebron represent the daily reality in all parts of the West Bank? Perhaps not as accurately as the documentary implies.

There are claims raised regarding coerced confessions. It is not mentioned that in both Israeli civil and military justice systems a conviction cannot be made solely on the force of confession. There are claims made regarding torture. It is not supported by any proof other than the claims themselves. There are claims made that the kids are clearly traumatized. It is not quite evident from the documentary that they are. None of them seems to be reluctant to talk about their experiences and the accounts sound well rehearsed rather than displaying severe emotional hardship at the retelling.

At one point an Israeli lawyer (Gaby Laski) claims that Israel is trying to fight the non-violent movement by violent means. There are no questions raised as to what she's on about. What non-violent movement is targeted? Does stone throwing fall outside the sphere of violent actions? The documentary brings forth Bassem al-Tamimi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bassem_al-Tamimi), as an advocate of non-violent resistance, but again, no relevant questions are raised as to Tamimi's views on stone throwing:

“We see our stones as our message,” Bassem explained. The message they carried, he said, was “We don’t accept you.” While Bassem spoke admiringly of Mahatma Gandhi, he didn’t worry over whether stone-throwing counted as violence. The question annoyed him: Israel uses far greater and more lethal force on a regular basis, he pointed out, without being asked to clarify its attitude toward violence. If the loincloth functioned as the sign of Gandhi’s resistance, of India’s nakedness in front of British colonial might, Bassem said, “Our sign is the stone.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/magazine/is-this-where-the-third-intifada-will-start.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

While there is a very brief mention of his family connection with Ahlam Tamimi - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlam_Tamimi , there is no explanation how the previously detailed Hebron arrests could target Tamimi, a resident of Nabi Salih (which is near Ramallah).

Ofer Prison is not a military prison, but run by the Israeli Prison Service since 2006 (there is a military court facility attached). No conceivable way that the maker of the documentary is not aware of this.

Daniella Weiss gets quite a bit of screen time in this documentary. There is no mention that her actions and views are considered to be extreme even for many of the settlers, but she can be counted upon for the provocative statement, so obviously a candidate of choice. Overall, the documentary focuses on the Palestinian narrative (or rather, what it presents as the Palestinian narrative), without much by way of debate or discussion. Most of the other Israeli speakers are actually members of left wing organizations which are sympathetic to the Palestinian narrative (to a point where they ignore certain realities).

The story regarding Israel holding Palestinian children in outdoor cages was debunked, and all relevant parties which carried it (NGOs and Media) published amendments and corrections. That is, apart from the Jerusalem Post. The original statement, by the way, referred to banning such a practice, which was generally directed at Israeli criminal suspects. Again, unlikely that the makers of the documentary were unaware of this.

The IDF jurisdiction over the Jewish settlers is a murky area. Often, soldiers are faced with situations which are ill defined and exceed their regulations and orders. The "tribal" element surely plays a part for some, but definitely not all - even without being

supportive of organizations such as "Breaking the Silence" there are quite often expressions of resentment toward the settlers behavior. Goes down to army not being the same thing as police, most armies are ill equipped to deal with such situations on a prolonged basis.

There are serious issues rightly raised by the Palestinians with regard to arrests of minors, and I cannot say that the answers and reasons provided by Israel are all compelling or very convincing Then again, not buying into the Palestinian narrative (at least as it is presented in this documentary) hook, line and sinker. The situation is far more complex than presented, and there are many dilemmas involved - yet only some are discussed. Rather than exploring the complexities, the documentary provides simple formulations and simple answers. I'm sure it appeals for some.

As an aside - on another running topic, certain members denounced the findings by an NGO on the grounds that they were self serving, exaggerated, blowing things out of proportion and out of context. Is this a general view regarding all such organizations or does the criticism apply only for organizations which support positions opposed to those of said posters?

I see that some of the previous linked to criticism of the documentary published on camera.org - while I am aware that this may not be the source of choice (certainly as far as some posters are concerned), the two or three articles in question actually hold quite a bit of factual detail regarding inaccuracies found in the documentary.

I think some of your critique is valid, certainly less biased than anything Camera.org would provide.

I appreciate your view that the testimony of the minors interviewed had no counter-allegations, defence, or refutations provided by the 4 Corners team from the IDF. I myself took the kids words with some skepticism on that same basis. I wonder why they didn't offer it. Did they seek "the other side of the story" only to be faced with bureaucratic stonewalling? Or maybe the journalists involved had seen enough to make up their own minds. I do not think they were pushing an agenda.

The fact remains that Palestinian children are abused. I think there's little doubt of that. The girl in the OP is an example.

[Morch]

That is because I could not find any information on the civil law - concerning juveniles that have committed crimes - at all - other than a few snippets that I already posted. There are plenty of things that are still very difficult to research on the Internet and - unless I was using the wrong search terms - that seems to be one of them.

Anyway, as far as I am concerned it is up to the person who made the accusation to provide proof of their charges and that was the poster that I was replying to.

Well, not going to act as secretary to either yourself or the poster you're arguing with - but generally speaking the notion that there are equal legal and penal measures applied to both Palestinians and Israeli settlers is not even a commonly made claim by Israelis, as far as I can tell. Since you both seem to concentrate on different formulations of the same issue, it's kinda hard to see this going anywhere:

[Ulysses G.]

They are criminals and there is no evidence that they were "abused", other than their own claims. The girl in the OP knew perfectly well that she would be arrested if caught.

[Ulysses G.]

Well, not going to act as secretary to either yourself or the poster you're arguing with - but generally speaking the notion that there are equal legal and penal measures applied to both Palestinians and Israeli settlers is not even a commonly made claim by Israelis, as far as I can tell.

Who claimed that they were? A poster suggested that no Israelis had been locked up at all for throwing stones. I replied that 53 of them had been. I never said that a citizen of Israel tried under civil law received the same punishment as a non-citizen tried under military law, but Seastallion specified "criminally violent settler children" and I'm pretty sure that neither one of us knows what kind of sentences someone like that would get. He certainly has not provided any evidence to back up HIS claim.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Morch]

Yes, to the OP...it would be interesting to hear from people what they make of the "Israelis torturing non-Jewish children" video documentary above. It's directly associated with the subject of the OP.

Any excuses? Any denials? Any justifications?

I ask because I don't want to blindly believe a documentary that although appearing even-handed, may be biased or false.

What do you make of it?

How does the so-called documentary even appear to be even-handed?

Take away the dramatic ominous sounds effects, the almost totally one-sided presentation of details, and the factual errors which are incorporated and things may look somewhat different. Not great, mind, but perhaps not as clear cut and evil as is claimed.

All of the Palestinian accounts and testimonies are presented as factual, without any visible attempt to verify claims. If someone says he did nothing, it is accepted without question. If someone claims to have been tortured, it is regarded without doubts. How does accepting one side's views at face value contribute to even-handedness?

Related Palestinian violence is only acknowledged about half way through the documentary. And even then, it mainly serves as driving a pro-Palestinian point home. Until then, it's all innocent Palestinians kids vs. Evil IDF and illegal Jewish settlers. This is not a truthful representation of reality - that is, unless one believes that no stones were ever thrown, and no harm was done.

At now time does the documentary raise the question of parental responsibility. Not even a free pass or explaining it away, it just not part of the program. It is deemed as irrelevant. The kids are not responsible, the parents are not responsible, everyone is so very passive.

Hebron is a flashpoint, probably one of the worst places in terms of friction between the IDF, settlers and Palestinians. Do similar incidents happen all over the West Bank? Yes. Does the situation in Hebron represent the daily reality in all parts of the West Bank? Perhaps not as accurately as the documentary implies.

There are claims raised regarding coerced confessions. It is not mentioned that in both Israeli civil and military justice systems a conviction cannot be made solely on the force of confession. There are claims made regarding torture. It is not supported by any proof other than the claims themselves. There are claims made that the kids are clearly traumatized. It is not quite evident from the documentary that they are. None of them seems to be reluctant to talk about their experiences and the accounts sound well rehearsed rather than displaying severe emotional hardship at the retelling.

At one point an Israeli lawyer (Gaby Laski) claims that Israel is trying to fight the non-violent movement by violent means. There are no questions raised as to what she's on about. What non-violent movement is targeted? Does stone throwing fall outside the sphere of violent actions? The documentary brings forth Bassem al-Tamimi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bassem_al-Tamimi), as an advocate of non-violent resistance, but again, no relevant questions are raised as to Tamimi's views on stone throwing:

“We see our stones as our message,” Bassem explained. The message they carried, he said, was “We don’t accept you.” While Bassem spoke admiringly of Mahatma Gandhi, he didn’t worry over whether stone-throwing counted as violence. The question annoyed him: Israel uses far greater and more lethal force on a regular basis, he pointed out, without being asked to clarify its attitude toward violence. If the loincloth functioned as the sign of Gandhi’s resistance, of India’s nakedness in front of British colonial might, Bassem said, “Our sign is the stone.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/magazine/is-this-where-the-third-intifada-will-start.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

While there is a very brief mention of his family connection with Ahlam Tamimi - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlam_Tamimi , there is no explanation how the previously detailed Hebron arrests could target Tamimi, a resident of Nabi Salih (which is near Ramallah).

Ofer Prison is not a military prison, but run by the Israeli Prison Service since 2006 (there is a military court facility attached). No conceivable way that the maker of the documentary is not aware of this.

Daniella Weiss gets quite a bit of screen time in this documentary. There is no mention that her actions and views are considered to be extreme even for many of the settlers, but she can be counted upon for the provocative statement, so obviously a candidate of choice. Overall, the documentary focuses on the Palestinian narrative (or rather, what it presents as the Palestinian narrative), without much by way of debate or discussion. Most of the other Israeli speakers are actually members of left wing organizations which are sympathetic to the Palestinian narrative (to a point where they ignore certain realities).

The story regarding Israel holding Palestinian children in outdoor cages was debunked, and all relevant parties which carried it (NGOs and Media) published amendments and corrections. That is, apart from the Jerusalem Post. The original statement, by the way, referred to banning such a practice, which was generally directed at Israeli criminal suspects. Again, unlikely that the makers of the documentary were unaware of this.

The IDF jurisdiction over the Jewish settlers is a murky area. Often, soldiers are faced with situations which are ill defined and exceed their regulations and orders. The "tribal" element surely plays a part for some, but definitely not all - even without being

supportive of organizations such as "Breaking the Silence" there are quite often expressions of resentment toward the settlers behavior. Goes down to army not being the same thing as police, most armies are ill equipped to deal with such situations on a prolonged basis.

There are serious issues rightly raised by the Palestinians with regard to arrests of minors, and I cannot say that the answers and reasons provided by Israel are all compelling or very convincing Then again, not buying into the Palestinian narrative (at least as it is presented in this documentary) hook, line and sinker. The situation is far more complex than presented, and there are many dilemmas involved - yet only some are discussed. Rather than exploring the complexities, the documentary provides simple formulations and simple answers. I'm sure it appeals for some.

As an aside - on another running topic, certain members denounced the findings by an NGO on the grounds that they were self serving, exaggerated, blowing things out of proportion and out of context. Is this a general view regarding all such organizations or does the criticism apply only for organizations which support positions opposed to those of said posters?

I see that some of the previous linked to criticism of the documentary published on camera.org - while I am aware that this may not be the source of choice (certainly as far as some posters are concerned), the two or three articles in question actually hold quite a bit of factual detail regarding inaccuracies found in the documentary.

I think some of your critique is valid, certainly less biased than anything Camera.org would provide.

I appreciate your view that the testimony of the minors interviewed had no counter-allegations, defence, or refutations provided by the 4 Corners team from the IDF. I myself took the kids words with some skepticism on that same basis. I wonder why they didn't offer it. Did they seek "the other side of the story" only to be faced with bureaucratic stonewalling? Or maybe the journalists involved had seen enough to make up their own minds. I do not think they were pushing an agenda.

The fact remains that Palestinian children are abused. I think there's little doubt of that. The girl in the OP is an example.

I actually thought that the Camera.org criticism was rather mild, compared to the usual fare, but that's probably because they had enough actual facts to work with, so less need for fiery rhetoric.

Having some acquaintance with people suffering from issues related to imprisonment, captivity and torture - I simply don't see it, at least not as far as the teens interviewed in the documentary. For one thing, non of them shows much uneasiness to talk about

what should have been traumatic experiences. There are no breaks in the delivery of the account, there isn't much emotion or distress expressed. Had they been so severely tortured there would have been some physical (not to speak of mental) indication which would surely by far more convincing. I do not claim that they were treated well - just that the stories seem over the top. One way of dealing with the results of talking to the investigators is to claim it was under physical duress. You're not a snitch, but a hero. That's not a cynical view, by the way, more a social survivalist one.

What "bureaucratic stonewalling"? There was no mention of attempting to get the IDF's version to events related and getting no comment. Verifying many of the details does not even require checking with the IDF, not to mention certain outright errors which could not conceivably be considered ignorance.

If "the journalists involved had seen enough to make up their own minds" then this is no documentary, but an opinion piece, like an editorial column. A documentary is usually expected to be more objective when relating the subject matter. Nowhere does the journalist actually say it is his opinion - everything is presented as factual.

No agenda? What exactly is Gerard Horton's job description is not that? Being an "International Advocacy Officer-Lawyer" with DCI-PS is pretty much about pushing forward an agenda (without getting into the merit of said agenda).

The fact remains that the documentary linked is problematic, to say the least. That the situation of children rights in the West Bank is far from optimal is a given, I don't think anyone contest that much. Focusing on specific aspects of the situation while ignoring others does not necessarily promote a better understanding of the relevant conditions. And the same goes for attempts at dodgy presentation of claimed "facts".

[Morch]

They are criminals and there is no evidence that they were "abused", other than their own claims. The girl in the OP knew perfectly well that she would be arrested if caught.

I recall knowing the consequences for some things "perfectly well" when I was 14. Or so, I thought, at the time.

Coming to think about it, didn't change all that much in some areas .

Most people do not expect a 14 year old to be perfectly aware of consequences (and if the Thai news section is anything to go by, the age of awareness seems to be somewhat an issue in this country), or be held fully responsible for actions. There could be issues raised with regards to parental responsibility, though.

Generally speaking, most civilized countries do not have legal systems under which minors are arrested in the late night hours (and yes, there is an operative rationale for this practice, which could be valid). This by itself would probably constitute abuse. As far as the torture claims go, they are indeed unsupported and do not seem very believable. Again, a question of what one is referring to when saying "abuse".