Israeli Occupation Places Baby under House Arrest

[ensho]

http://www.sana.sy/eng/21/2009/04/11/221041.htm


In an arbitrary act that is probably the first of its kind in human history, the Israeli occupation forces placed one-year-old baby Fahd Shuqeir under house arrest for two years simply for being born in Damascus.

-snip-

The baby was born to parents from Majdal Shams who were studying in Damascus University, and upon their return to their hometown with their firstborn son, they were informed by the occupation forces of the decision to place the baby under house arrest.

The baby's uncle Dr. Ihsan Shuqeir stated that the family anticipated all possibilities and the harassments that they will suffer from at the hands of occupation forces, but this act exceeded all expectations, noting that the baby can't visit a doctor or accompany his mother to visit his grandfather.

"The Israeli occupation forces' excuse is that the baby is a terrorist because he was born in Damascus," he said.
-snip-
------------------------------------


the men who run Israel have all gone mad - seriously.

[soulcore]

1. More disgusting actions from Israel.

But what's another tragedy amongst the war crimes and bodies?

[oberliner]

2. Alternatively, the Syrian Arab News Agency is making things up

Something to consider.

It is not an independent media outlet - it is run by the Syrian government.

[soulcore]

3. The same way CNN 'made up" all those reports on White Phosphorous?

I'll give the occupied peoples the benefit of the doubt for now.

[LeftishBrit]

4. Well, sometimes atrocity stories are indeed made up.

E.g. the one about babies being torn out of their incubators in Iraq. I doubt that Syrian government-run news is any more trustworthy than Fox News or its early 1990s precursors.

The Israel government and military do sometimes do fairly awful things. They also sometimes gest accused of things they didn't do. Same goes for most governments and groups in the region.

If Israel did do this, it's disgusting of them. Hopefully the truth will emerge one way of the other.

[eyl]

14. Note the lack of any identifying details

of the child or family. There also seems to be no corroberating source for this.

[oberliner]

8. Syria is not occupied

And CNN is (in theory) independent of the US government.

This article is from the state-run Syrian News agency and is not written objectively.

If it were a real news article it would include interviews with folks on the Israeli side explaining their version of the story.

[Idealism]

11. While I agree that this article is more propaganda than reality

Your definition of a "real news article" is amusing. How many articles published in JPost tell the Palestinian narrative?

[eyl]

13. Many of them at least include a response

or statement, which is more than this article does.

[safeinOhio]

5. If true, I'm sure you'll also condemn Israel?

[cali]

10. if false,I'm sure you'll condemn this as slander, right?

And I have no problem condemning Israel if this is true. I often condemn Israel for its actions. I do have a problem with people using propaganda as if it were a reliable source- whether its' propaganda promoting the Israeli side or the Palestinian or Syrian or whatever side.

[Idealism]

6. There has to be a backstory there

Exiled outlaw father or something?

[Grimm]

7. It seems like an issue of citizenship

I'm just reading the last line and it sounds like the parents never registered the birth of their son, so he doesn't have legal citizenship - Israeli, Syrian or otherwise. It'd be nice if there was an article out there that gave the Israeli side of the story (or at least an article that placed more focus on the family's story rather than the evils of the occupation force), but so far this is the most descriptive article out there.

EDIT: OK. Apparently the parents have Syrian citizenship, not Israeli, because of how things worked after Israel took the Golan Heights. Therefore, the child would be considered a Syrian citizen because he was born outside of Israel and wouldn't be able to get Israeli citizenship. And since Syria and Israel have declared themselves enemies, citizens of each country can't run willy-nilly through each other's land. Basically, the two-year old is an enemy of the state following the black letter rules. However, Israeli law also allows the Minister of the Interior to grant citizenship to minors that are residents, but not citizens, of Israel at his/her discretion. Hopefully the new coalition government will come through and use common sense.

[shaayecanaan]

12. Not citizenship...

Therefore, the child would be considered a Syrian citizen because he was born outside of Israel and wouldn't be able to get Israeli citizenship.

Residency, not citizenship. Golani Druze are entitled to the effective status of permanent residents in Israel. They are also entitled to citizenship but only very rarely do they take it.

citizens of each country can't run willy-nilly through each other's land. Basically, the two-year old is an enemy of the state following the black letter rules.

No. The baby is just a regular baby. It would have been a Syrian citizen regardless of where it was born, since all Golani Druze are Syrians. That is the necessary consequence when you mount an illegal occupation of someone else's land.

However, Israeli law also allows the Minister of the Interior to grant citizenship to minors that are residents, but not citizens, of Israel at his/her discretion.

No. The Golanis don't ask for citizenship and don't want it. In this case all the family wants is to be left alone.

I imagine the rules Israel has relating to the Golani provide that Golanis are entitled to permanent residency if they were born in the Golan or were residing there at the beginning of the occupation. The baby may fall outside those rules; nervertheless it is silly to exclude a baby that is the child of Golani residents.

[cali]

9. gad, love how people swill down blatant propaganda if it fits their

ideology. and this is pure propaganda with no evidence presented for the claim.