New rules of engagement for stone throwers from the IDF. Expect quite a few deaths

[rylah]

I don't get the logic behind demanding Israel to treat PA citizens equal to Israeli. Are not the palestinians citizens/nationals/loayals of a different authority?

 

[Phoenall]

I don't get the logic behind demanding Israel to treat PA citizens equal to Israeli. Are not the palestinians citizens/nationals/loayals of a different authority?

YUUUUP that is what team Palestine cant get their heads round. Which is why I keep asking them if they also want to be given the same rights as America and are also allowed to vote in American elections. Not one of them has got the joke yet.

 

[Coyote]

I don't get the logic behind demanding Israel to treat PA citizens equal to Israeli. Are not the palestinians citizens/nationals/loayals of a different authority?

Then they should be under the jurisdiction of that authority...but...they aren't.

 

[Coyote]

I don't get the logic behind demanding Israel to treat PA citizens equal to Israeli. Are not the palestinians citizens/nationals/loayals of a different authority?

YUUUUP that is what team Palestine cant get their heads round. Which is why I keep asking them if they also want to be given the same rights as America and are also allowed to vote in American elections. Not one of them has got the joke yet.

In the Occupied Territories - who has jurisdiction? The Palestinians? Can the PA shoot Israeli stone throwers?

 

[rylah]

I don't get the logic behind demanding Israel to treat PA citizens equal to Israeli. Are not the palestinians citizens/nationals/loayals of a different authority?

Then they should be under the jurisdiction of that authority...but...they aren't.

So the solution is to claim...even demand it from others? And expect those who they sought to annihilate give it to them???
For once they should take responsibility for their lives.

 

[Phoenall]

I don't get the logic behind demanding Israel to treat PA citizens equal to Israeli. Are not the palestinians citizens/nationals/loayals of a different authority?

Then they should be under the jurisdiction of that authority...but...they aren't.

But they are and that authority refuses to take any action and handed the policing to Israel. So they must now live with mess of their own making. The Geneva conventions dictate that the occupying power must enforce the rule of law as it was when they occupied the territory. They cant add punishments that are not on the statute books of the country that was sovereign, but they can reduce them. So you need to look at Jordanian laws for the punishments that can be handed out for attempted murder.

 

[Phoenall]

I don't get the logic behind demanding Israel to treat PA citizens equal to Israeli. Are not the palestinians citizens/nationals/loayals of a different authority?

YUUUUP that is what team Palestine cant get their heads round. Which is why I keep asking them if they also want to be given the same rights as America and are also allowed to vote in American elections. Not one of them has got the joke yet.

In the Occupied Territories - who has jurisdiction? The Palestinians? Can the PA shoot Israeli stone throwers?

No the Israelis have jurisdiction, but the P.A. can enforce their law in the parts they control. This is gaza and we have seen how they enforce the law, so can Israel do the same things ? The P.A. have capitulated on law enforcement and have left this up to the IDF to manage, guess they are now regretting it.

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

I think it might be necessary to reassess your assumption that the "supposedly the same law is supposed to govern them all."

It's a single standard being applied, of course, and palistanians don't like it. Doooh.

Nope. It's two different standards applied to residents of the same territory for the same crime where supposedly the same law is supposed to govern them all. What you call "liberal-limo", civilized people call equal treatment under the law.

(COMMENT)

At every dispute ---- the Arab Palestinian has stated and insisted that the Geneva Convention be applied. And at the direction UN Security Council, the Geneva Convention must be applies. Thus, Article 68 comes into play for the Arab Palestinians.

However, the Geneva Convention does not cover Israeli civilians and settlers that equally arrived under the jurisdiction of the Oslo Accords. Thus Israel Law applies to them.

The concept of "equal protection" (on the international level) is derived from Article 7 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It presupposes that the legal venue is the same (which it is not). The UDHR (which is non-binding) has actually been supplanted by two other compacts.

• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) which when entry into force 3 January 1976
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), which came into force 23 March 1976
​

And while Article 14(1) of the CCPR extends a similar right, it is not exactly been excepted universally by all nations, and is limited to particular individual court or tribunal. Clearly, (as an example) adultery is treated separately and difference in various countries and according to gender --- and dependent on if it is treated as a crime or civil matter. Sharia Law is vastly different from Western Laws --- varying most drastically on special issues in terms of social morals and modesty.

So NO! While a Westerner may take for granted that the concept of "equal protection" under the law is customary; it is in fact --- not.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[docmauser1]

I don't get the logic behind demanding Israel to treat PA citizens equal to Israeli. Are not the palestinians citizens/nationals/loayals of a different authority?

Then they should be under the jurisdiction of that authority...but...they aren't.

But of course they are. They're "proud" "independent" palistanian liars, when it comes to flags and UNs, and "poor 'n robbed" liars, when it comes to living up to the former, of course. Pathological liars, indeed.

 

[docmauser1]

In the Occupied Territories - who has jurisdiction?

There are no occupied territories outside of the palistanian occupation. Israeli responsibility for the brat ended in 1995, of course. Rabin and Arafat signed the Oslo II agreement that year. It provided for withdrawal from the cities in judea & samaria, with 98% of palistanians assholes, Shechem, Jenin, Qalqilya, Ramallah, Bethlehem, Tulkarm, Jericho and almost all of Hebron, of course.

 

[docmauser1]

It's a single standard being applied, of course, and palistanians don't like it. Doooh.

Nope. It's two different standards applied to residents of the same territory for the same crime where supposedly the same law is supposed to govern them all. What you call "liberal-limo", civilized people call equal treatment under the law.

So, when are the allegedly "civilized people" stopping their preferential treatment of palistanians?

 

[docmauser1]

Wonder if it will apply to Israeli settler stone throwers. They have yet to shoot one.

Throwing rocks is an inherent part of the palistanian settler occupation, not so much so with jews, of course. The former hurl rocks at cats, dogs, folks, buses, trains, etc..

As do the latter: Settlers throw stones at U.S. consulate convoy in West Bank - Diplomacy and Defense

What was that pathetic convoy doing there in the first place? They could've picked another venue for their palistan-arse kissing excercise, of course, dumbass State provocateurs.

Well...that's a new one. Kind of justifies the question often asked of the Jewish settlers...."what are they doing there in the first place"?

Living there, of course! Funny, eh?

You seem to think that justifies stone throwing and violence...maybe it does Is that what you are saying?

Self-defence, that is. If the jewish communities used firearms, it would give palistanians more incentive to look for another occupation, of course. Unfortunately, the israeli guvmint is too lenient on palistanians and too harsh on jews.

No one shoots them for it however. Maybe that will change now. Or not.

Jewish self-defence and palistanian settler aggression ain't the same thang, of course.

Stoning civilians and kids who are not doing anything wrong is not self defense.[/QUOTE]It's the palistanian occupation, indeed.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, et al,

I think it might be necessary to reassess your assumption that the "supposedly the same law is supposed to govern them all."

It's a single standard being applied, of course, and palistanians don't like it. Doooh.

Nope. It's two different standards applied to residents of the same territory for the same crime where supposedly the same law is supposed to govern them all. What you call "liberal-limo", civilized people call equal treatment under the law.

(COMMENT)

At every dispute ---- the Arab Palestinian has stated and insisted that the Geneva Convention be applied. And at the direction UN Security Council, the Geneva Convention must be applies. Thus, Article 68 comes into play for the Arab Palestinians.

However, the Geneva Convention does not cover Israeli civilians and settlers that equally arrived under the jurisdiction of the Oslo Accords. Thus Israel Law applies to them.

The concept of "equal protection" (on the international level) is derived from Article 7 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It presupposes that the legal venue is the same (which it is not). The UDHR (which is non-binding) has actually been supplanted by two other compacts.

• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) which when entry into force 3 January 1976
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), which came into force 23 March 1976
​

And while Article 14(1) of the CCPR extends a similar right, it is not exactly been excepted universally by all nations, and is limited to particular individual court or tribunal. Clearly, (as an example) adultery is treated separately and difference in various countries and according to gender --- and dependent on if it is treated as a crime or civil matter. Sharia Law is vastly different from Western Laws --- varying most drastically on special issues in terms of social morals and modesty.

So NO! While a Westerner may take for granted that the concept of "equal protection" under the law is customary; it is in fact --- not.

Most Respectfully,
R

So what law are they applying on Palestinian stone throwers? This is an Israeli law being applied - should it be applied differently to different people in the same territory?

ttp://www.haaretz.com/blogs/routine-emergencies/.premium-1.676564

But before Israelis pat their government on the back for taking such steps to deter future incidents, they should pause and ask themselves whether they are ready to declare all stone throwers - or, as the prime minister would put it - attempted murderers - equal.

The consequences of government endorsement of deadly force against all throwers of rocks, bottles and explosives and making it the law of the land will technically apply to Arab and Jew alike.

And let’s not fool ourselves - Jews are no strangers to rock-throwing.

Recent examples of Israelis using stones as weapons against Palestinians are numerous, especially, but not exclusively in Jerusalem and the West Bank. Residents of East Jerusalem have thrown stones at the neighboring Palestinian refugee camp, Shuafat. Just last January, settlers threw stones at an American convoy containing diplomats who came to examine complaints that settlers destroyed Palestinian-owned olive groves. And Palestinian complaints of stone-throwing and firebombing as harassment methods happens again and again. ​

And then there is the frequent use of stone-throwing in situations utterly unrelated to the Palestinian conflict. Protesting crowds of ultra-Orthodox Jews have thrown stones while decrying everything from army recruitment, to archaeological digs, to Shabbat desecration, to members of their community being arrested for tax evasion. Stones have also been hurled at the cars of secular and national religious women deemed to be inappropriately dressed in ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods.

And can we really forget so quickly that it was just last April, that angry Ethiopian youth stood in the streets hurling stones, bottles, and firebombs at storefronts and police in the heart of Tel Aviv.

Would anyone advocating using live fire against them?

Nearly all leading politicians prefer to ignore this reality when they advocate for increasingly harsh measures against stone-throwing, certain that they should, and will, only be applied to Palestinians. But once upon a time it was thought inconceivable that administrative detention measures designed to apply to Palestinians would be taken against Jews - and today it is a reality.

​

 

[Coyote]

Wonder if it will apply to Israeli settler stone throwers. They have yet to shoot one.

Throwing rocks is an inherent part of the palistanian settler occupation, not so much so with jews, of course. The former hurl rocks at cats, dogs, folks, buses, trains, etc..

As do the latter: Settlers throw stones at U.S. consulate convoy in West Bank - Diplomacy and Defense

What was that pathetic convoy doing there in the first place? They could've picked another venue for their palistan-arse kissing excercise, of course, dumbass State provocateurs.

Well...that's a new one. Kind of justifies the question often asked of the Jewish settlers...."what are they doing there in the first place"?

Living there, of course! Funny, eh?

Amazing...just like Palestinians...who'd've guessed, small world

Self-defence, that is. If the jewish communities used firearms, it would give palistanians more incentive to look for another occupation, of course. Unfortunately, the israeli guvmint is too lenient on palistanians and too harsh on jews.

It's the palistanian occupation, indeed.

There is no Palestinian occupation, but you are certainly free to believe whatever myth you wish to defend your actions

 

[Coyote]

In the Occupied Territories - who has jurisdiction?

There are no occupied territories outside of the palistanian occupation. Israeli responsibility for the brat ended in 1995, of course. Rabin and Arafat signed the Oslo II agreement that year. It provided for withdrawal from the cities in judea & samaria, with 98% of palistanians assholes, Shechem, Jenin, Qalqilya, Ramallah, Bethlehem, Tulkarm, Jericho and almost all of Hebron, of course.

There is no Palestinian Occupation.

Even the Israeli High Court considers it to be "occupied territory" and the occupying force is Israel.

 

[docmauser1]

Coyote, et al,

I think it might be necessary to reassess your assumption that the "supposedly the same law is supposed to govern them all."

It's a single standard being applied, of course, and palistanians don't like it. Doooh.

Nope. It's two different standards applied to residents of the same territory for the same crime where supposedly the same law is supposed to govern them all. What you call "liberal-limo", civilized people call equal treatment under the law.

(COMMENT)

At every dispute ---- the Arab Palestinian has stated and insisted that the Geneva Convention be applied. And at the direction UN Security Council, the Geneva Convention must be applies. Thus, Article 68 comes into play for the Arab Palestinians.

However, the Geneva Convention does not cover Israeli civilians and settlers that equally arrived under the jurisdiction of the Oslo Accords. Thus Israel Law applies to them.

The concept of "equal protection" (on the international level) is derived from Article 7 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It presupposes that the legal venue is the same (which it is not). The UDHR (which is non-binding) has actually been supplanted by two other compacts.

• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) which when entry into force 3 January 1976
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), which came into force 23 March 1976
​

And while Article 14(1) of the CCPR extends a similar right, it is not exactly been excepted universally by all nations, and is limited to particular individual court or tribunal. Clearly, (as an example) adultery is treated separately and difference in various countries and according to gender --- and dependent on if it is treated as a crime or civil matter. Sharia Law is vastly different from Western Laws --- varying most drastically on special issues in terms of social morals and modesty.

So NO! While a Westerner may take for granted that the concept of "equal protection" under the law is customary; it is in fact --- not.

Most Respectfully,
R

So what law are they applying on Palestinian stone throwers? This is an Israeli law being applied - should it be applied differently to different people in the same territory?

ttp://www.haaretz.com/blogs/routine-emergencies/.premium-1.676564

But before Israelis pat their government on the back for taking such steps to deter future incidents, they should pause and ask themselves whether they are ready to declare all stone throwers - or, as the prime minister would put it - attempted murderers - equal.

The consequences of government endorsement of deadly force against all throwers of rocks, bottles and explosives and making it the law of the land will technically apply to Arab and Jew alike.

And let’s not fool ourselves - Jews are no strangers to rock-throwing.

Recent examples of Israelis using stones as weapons against Palestinians are numerous, especially, but not exclusively in Jerusalem and the West Bank. Residents of East Jerusalem have thrown stones at the neighboring Palestinian refugee camp, Shuafat. Just last January, settlers threw stones at an American convoy containing diplomats who came to examine complaints that settlers destroyed Palestinian-owned olive groves. And Palestinian complaints of stone-throwing and firebombing as harassment methods happens again and again. ​

And then there is the frequent use of stone-throwing in situations utterly unrelated to the Palestinian conflict. Protesting crowds of ultra-Orthodox Jews have thrown stones while decrying everything from army recruitment, to archaeological digs, to Shabbat desecration, to members of their community being arrested for tax evasion. Stones have also been hurled at the cars of secular and national religious women deemed to be inappropriately dressed in ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods.

And can we really forget so quickly that it was just last April, that angry Ethiopian youth stood in the streets hurling stones, bottles, and firebombs at storefronts and police in the heart of Tel Aviv.

Would anyone advocating using live fire against them?

Nearly all leading politicians prefer to ignore this reality when they advocate for increasingly harsh measures against stone-throwing, certain that they should, and will, only be applied to Palestinians. But once upon a time it was thought inconceivable that administrative detention measures designed to apply to Palestinians would be taken against Jews - and today it is a reality.​

Yupp, the haaretz rag and its moral equivalence drivel, of course.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, et al,

I think it might be necessary to reassess your assumption that the "supposedly the same law is supposed to govern them all."

It's a single standard being applied, of course, and palistanians don't like it. Doooh.

Nope. It's two different standards applied to residents of the same territory for the same crime where supposedly the same law is supposed to govern them all. What you call "liberal-limo", civilized people call equal treatment under the law.

(COMMENT)

At every dispute ---- the Arab Palestinian has stated and insisted that the Geneva Convention be applied. And at the direction UN Security Council, the Geneva Convention must be applies. Thus, Article 68 comes into play for the Arab Palestinians.

However, the Geneva Convention does not cover Israeli civilians and settlers that equally arrived under the jurisdiction of the Oslo Accords. Thus Israel Law applies to them.

The concept of "equal protection" (on the international level) is derived from Article 7 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It presupposes that the legal venue is the same (which it is not). The UDHR (which is non-binding) has actually been supplanted by two other compacts.

• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) which when entry into force 3 January 1976
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), which came into force 23 March 1976
​

And while Article 14(1) of the CCPR extends a similar right, it is not exactly been excepted universally by all nations, and is limited to particular individual court or tribunal. Clearly, (as an example) adultery is treated separately and difference in various countries and according to gender --- and dependent on if it is treated as a crime or civil matter. Sharia Law is vastly different from Western Laws --- varying most drastically on special issues in terms of social morals and modesty.

So NO! While a Westerner may take for granted that the concept of "equal protection" under the law is customary; it is in fact --- not.

Most Respectfully,
R

So what law are they applying on Palestinian stone throwers? This is an Israeli law being applied - should it be applied differently to different people in the same territory?

ttp://www.haaretz.com/blogs/routine-emergencies/.premium-1.676564

But before Israelis pat their government on the back for taking such steps to deter future incidents, they should pause and ask themselves whether they are ready to declare all stone throwers - or, as the prime minister would put it - attempted murderers - equal.

The consequences of government endorsement of deadly force against all throwers of rocks, bottles and explosives and making it the law of the land will technically apply to Arab and Jew alike.

And let’s not fool ourselves - Jews are no strangers to rock-throwing.

Recent examples of Israelis using stones as weapons against Palestinians are numerous, especially, but not exclusively in Jerusalem and the West Bank. Residents of East Jerusalem have thrown stones at the neighboring Palestinian refugee camp, Shuafat. Just last January, settlers threw stones at an American convoy containing diplomats who came to examine complaints that settlers destroyed Palestinian-owned olive groves. And Palestinian complaints of stone-throwing and firebombing as harassment methods happens again and again. ​

And then there is the frequent use of stone-throwing in situations utterly unrelated to the Palestinian conflict. Protesting crowds of ultra-Orthodox Jews have thrown stones while decrying everything from army recruitment, to archaeological digs, to Shabbat desecration, to members of their community being arrested for tax evasion. Stones have also been hurled at the cars of secular and national religious women deemed to be inappropriately dressed in ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods.

And can we really forget so quickly that it was just last April, that angry Ethiopian youth stood in the streets hurling stones, bottles, and firebombs at storefronts and police in the heart of Tel Aviv.

Would anyone advocating using live fire against them?

Nearly all leading politicians prefer to ignore this reality when they advocate for increasingly harsh measures against stone-throwing, certain that they should, and will, only be applied to Palestinians. But once upon a time it was thought inconceivable that administrative detention measures designed to apply to Palestinians would be taken against Jews - and today it is a reality.​

Yupp, the haaretz rag and its moral equivalence drivel, of course.

It's better than the racist drivel

 

[docmauser1]

Throwing rocks is an inherent part of the palistanian settler occupation, not so much so with jews, of course. The former hurl rocks at cats, dogs, folks, buses, trains, etc..

As do the latter: Settlers throw stones at U.S. consulate convoy in West Bank - Diplomacy and Defense

What was that pathetic convoy doing there in the first place? They could've picked another venue for their palistan-arse kissing excercise, of course, dumbass State provocateurs.

Well...that's a new one. Kind of justifies the question often asked of the Jewish settlers...."what are they doing there in the first place"?

Living there, of course! Funny, eh?

Amazing...just like Palestinians...who'd've guessed, small world

Self-defence, that is. If the jewish communities used firearms, it would give palistanians more incentive to look for another occupation, of course. Unfortunately, the israeli guvmint is too lenient on palistanians and too harsh on jews.

It's the palistanian occupation, indeed.

There is no Palestinian occupation, but you are certainly free to believe whatever myth you wish to defend your actions

But of course, it's a palistanian occupation.

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

I think the blog is a bit one sided.

Coyote, et al,

I think it might be necessary to reassess your assumption that the "supposedly the same law is supposed to govern them all."

It's a single standard being applied, of course, and palistanians don't like it. Doooh.

Nope. It's two different standards applied to residents of the same territory for the same crime where supposedly the same law is supposed to govern them all. What you call "liberal-limo", civilized people call equal treatment under the law.

(COMMENT)

At every dispute ---- the Arab Palestinian has stated and insisted that the Geneva Convention be applied. And at the direction UN Security Council, the Geneva Convention must be applies. Thus, Article 68 comes into play for the Arab Palestinians.

However, the Geneva Convention does not cover Israeli civilians and settlers that equally arrived under the jurisdiction of the Oslo Accords. Thus Israel Law applies to them.

The concept of "equal protection" (on the international level) is derived from Article 7 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It presupposes that the legal venue is the same (which it is not). The UDHR (which is non-binding) has actually been supplanted by two other compacts.

• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) which when entry into force 3 January 1976
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), which came into force 23 March 1976
​

And while Article 14(1) of the CCPR extends a similar right, it is not exactly been excepted universally by all nations, and is limited to particular individual court or tribunal. Clearly, (as an example) adultery is treated separately and difference in various countries and according to gender --- and dependent on if it is treated as a crime or civil matter. Sharia Law is vastly different from Western Laws --- varying most drastically on special issues in terms of social morals and modesty.

So NO! While a Westerner may take for granted that the concept of "equal protection" under the law is customary; it is in fact --- not.

Most Respectfully,
R

So what law are they applying on Palestinian stone throwers? This is an Israeli law being applied - should it be applied differently to different people in the same territory?

ttp://www.haaretz.com/blogs/routine-emergencies/.premium-1.676564

But before Israelis pat their government on the back for taking such steps to deter future incidents, they should pause and ask themselves whether they are ready to declare all stone throwers - or, as the prime minister would put it - attempted murderers - equal.

The consequences of government endorsement of deadly force against all throwers of rocks, bottles and explosives and making it the law of the land will technically apply to Arab and Jew alike.

And let’s not fool ourselves - Jews are no strangers to rock-throwing.

Recent examples of Israelis using stones as weapons against Palestinians are numerous, especially, but not exclusively in Jerusalem and the West Bank. Residents of East Jerusalem have thrown stones at the neighboring Palestinian refugee camp, Shuafat. Just last January, settlers threw stones at an American convoy containing diplomats who came to examine complaints that settlers destroyed Palestinian-owned olive groves. And Palestinian complaints of stone-throwing and firebombing as harassment methods happens again and again. ​

And then there is the frequent use of stone-throwing in situations utterly unrelated to the Palestinian conflict. Protesting crowds of ultra-Orthodox Jews have thrown stones while decrying everything from army recruitment, to archaeological digs, to Shabbat desecration, to members of their community being arrested for tax evasion. Stones have also been hurled at the cars of secular and national religious women deemed to be inappropriately dressed in ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods.

And can we really forget so quickly that it was just last April, that angry Ethiopian youth stood in the streets hurling stones, bottles, and firebombs at storefronts and police in the heart of Tel Aviv.

Would anyone advocating using live fire against them?

Nearly all leading politicians prefer to ignore this reality when they advocate for increasingly harsh measures against stone-throwing, certain that they should, and will, only be applied to Palestinians. But once upon a time it was thought inconceivable that administrative detention measures designed to apply to Palestinians would be taken against Jews - and today it is a reality.
​

(COMMENT)

I've already demonstrated that the Israeli Police and Security authorities have arrested Jewish Settlers on similar charges and more. And if you look at my commentary (Post # 240), you will see that I wasn't kidding my self. I readily demonstrate that the Jewish Settlers have a history of criminal behaviors going back at least five years (undoubted more). The point is that the Israeli Police and Security authorities are making arrests. Maybe not as many as you would like, but they are making arrests.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

Coyote, et al,

I think it might be necessary to reassess your assumption that the "supposedly the same law is supposed to govern them all."

It's a single standard being applied, of course, and palistanians don't like it. Doooh.

Nope. It's two different standards applied to residents of the same territory for the same crime where supposedly the same law is supposed to govern them all. What you call "liberal-limo", civilized people call equal treatment under the law.

(COMMENT)

At every dispute ---- the Arab Palestinian has stated and insisted that the Geneva Convention be applied. And at the direction UN Security Council, the Geneva Convention must be applies. Thus, Article 68 comes into play for the Arab Palestinians.

However, the Geneva Convention does not cover Israeli civilians and settlers that equally arrived under the jurisdiction of the Oslo Accords. Thus Israel Law applies to them.

The concept of "equal protection" (on the international level) is derived from Article 7 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It presupposes that the legal venue is the same (which it is not). The UDHR (which is non-binding) has actually been supplanted by two other compacts.

• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) which when entry into force 3 January 1976
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), which came into force 23 March 1976
​

And while Article 14(1) of the CCPR extends a similar right, it is not exactly been excepted universally by all nations, and is limited to particular individual court or tribunal. Clearly, (as an example) adultery is treated separately and difference in various countries and according to gender --- and dependent on if it is treated as a crime or civil matter. Sharia Law is vastly different from Western Laws --- varying most drastically on special issues in terms of social morals and modesty.

So NO! While a Westerner may take for granted that the concept of "equal protection" under the law is customary; it is in fact --- not.

Most Respectfully,
R

So what law are they applying on Palestinian stone throwers? This is an Israeli law being applied - should it be applied differently to different people in the same territory?

ttp://www.haaretz.com/blogs/routine-emergencies/.premium-1.676564

But before Israelis pat their government on the back for taking such steps to deter future incidents, they should pause and ask themselves whether they are ready to declare all stone throwers - or, as the prime minister would put it - attempted murderers - equal.

The consequences of government endorsement of deadly force against all throwers of rocks, bottles and explosives and making it the law of the land will technically apply to Arab and Jew alike.

And let’s not fool ourselves - Jews are no strangers to rock-throwing.

Recent examples of Israelis using stones as weapons against Palestinians are numerous, especially, but not exclusively in Jerusalem and the West Bank. Residents of East Jerusalem have thrown stones at the neighboring Palestinian refugee camp, Shuafat. Just last January, settlers threw stones at an American convoy containing diplomats who came to examine complaints that settlers destroyed Palestinian-owned olive groves. And Palestinian complaints of stone-throwing and firebombing as harassment methods happens again and again. ​

And then there is the frequent use of stone-throwing in situations utterly unrelated to the Palestinian conflict. Protesting crowds of ultra-Orthodox Jews have thrown stones while decrying everything from army recruitment, to archaeological digs, to Shabbat desecration, to members of their community being arrested for tax evasion. Stones have also been hurled at the cars of secular and national religious women deemed to be inappropriately dressed in ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods.

And can we really forget so quickly that it was just last April, that angry Ethiopian youth stood in the streets hurling stones, bottles, and firebombs at storefronts and police in the heart of Tel Aviv.

Would anyone advocating using live fire against them?

Nearly all leading politicians prefer to ignore this reality when they advocate for increasingly harsh measures against stone-throwing, certain that they should, and will, only be applied to Palestinians. But once upon a time it was thought inconceivable that administrative detention measures designed to apply to Palestinians would be taken against Jews - and today it is a reality.

​

Different laws apply because of the customary International law embodied in the Geneva convention. The Palestinians are subject to Jordanian law under the Geneva conventions while the Israelis are subject to Israeli law under the Geneva conventions. Until the law makers sit and study the terms in G.C 4 that is how it will stay.
If Israeli law had it that stone throwers were executed would you want it to apply to Palestinians, or would you want Jordanian Law to apply.