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

[Phoenall]

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.

And as such it is covered by G.C. 4 which Israel sticks to very closely.

 

[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.

There is no Palestinian Occupation.

But of course, it's a palistanian occupation. The palistanian occupation, indeed.

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

Funny. It's 2015 outside, what year is that high court stuck in and how high?

 

[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.​

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

It's better than the racist drivel

Problem is with it being a blog there is no fall back and the author can write as many lies as he wants, as the blog is in his opinion which clears him legally.

 

[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.

​

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.

Right now, Israeli law has it that stone throwers can be shot. What remains to be seen is whether it is applied across the board.

If only Jewish stone throwers get shot - that is wrong.
If only Palestinian stone throwers get shot - that is wrong.

This shooting of stone throwers is an Israeli law.

 

[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.

But of course, it's a palistanian occupation. The palistanian occupation, indeed.

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

Funny. It's 2015 outside, what year is that high court stuck in and how high?

Have they changed their ruling?

If not, then you have no point to make.

 

[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.

​

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.

Right now, Israeli law has it that stone throwers can be shot. What remains to be seen is whether it is applied across the board. If only Jewish stone throwers get shot - that is wrong. If only Palestinian stone throwers get shot - that is wrong. This shooting of stone throwers is an Israeli law.

Cool. So, citizens of abu mazen, ie. the occupationally palistanian, get all shot up. Not that "moral equivalence" & "proportionality" bullshit to keep limolibs happy.

 

[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.

There is no Palestinian Occupation.

But of course, it's a palistanian occupation. The palistanian occupation, indeed.

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

Funny. It's 2015 outside, what year is that high court stuck in and how high?

Have they changed their ruling?

It's illegal to give alcohol to a moose in Alaska. Noone changed that either. But time moves on and times change, of course./size]

If not, then you have no point to make.

But off course, i have and do.

 

[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.

But of course, it's a palistanian occupation. The palistanian occupation, indeed.

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

Funny. It's 2015 outside, what year is that high court stuck in and how high?

Have they changed their ruling?

It's illegal to give alcohol to a moose in Alaska. Noone changed that either. But time moves on and times change, of course./size]

If not, then you have no point to make.

But off course, i have and do.

I think there is a considerable difference between a military occupation and an intoxicated moose.

There are laws making murder murder illegal....time moves on...and times change. But murder is still murder.

 

[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."

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.

Right now, Israeli law has it that stone throwers can be shot. What remains to be seen is whether it is applied across the board. If only Jewish stone throwers get shot - that is wrong. If only Palestinian stone throwers get shot - that is wrong. This shooting of stone throwers is an Israeli law.

Cool. So, citizens of abu mazen, ie. the occupationally palistanian, get all shot up. Not that "moral equivalence" & "proportionality" bullshit to keep limolibs happy.

...moral equivelence sems to be you and your ilk's favorite buzz word to deflect from uncomfortable realities. Kind of gives you a free pass in ethics

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

You have fallen into a trap; known as logical fallacy. This is a competing conceptions sound applicable to the argument; but, in fact are equally wrong in acceptable behavioual outcomes, and are false popular beliefs that they are deceptively valid sounding.

The argument is based on equal application of a countermeasure.

• The measures, approved by the Security Cabinet on Thursday, allow police officers to fire live ammunition when there is an "immediate and concrete danger to police or civilians," according to a government statement.

Right now, Israeli law has it that stone throwers can be shot. What remains to be seen is whether it is applied across the board.

If only Jewish stone throwers get shot - that is wrong.
If only Palestinian stone throwers get shot - that is wrong.

This shooting of stone throwers is an Israeli law.

(COMMENT)

The entire objective of "law enforcement" is to provide a system in which detecting, deterring, and responding to violations of laws established by the accepted legislative system which set the standard of norms for a general situation.

By saying --- "Right now, Israeli law has it that stone throwers can be shot." --- is not the way in which the countermeasure should be expressed; it is very crude. However, it implied an equality in its application (not selective enforcement). As you have expressed it, the new available countermeasure to "stone throwing" DOES NOT distinguish between Israeli violators and Palestinian violators that present the same threat --- all other things being equal.

The object of the law is to prevent crime (Crime Prevention --- specifically the efforts made to reduce criminal activity and the consequences). "The measures, approved by the Security Cabinet on Thursday, allow police officers to fire live ammunition when there is an "immediate and concrete danger to police or civilians," according to a government statement." (Source Link) In this case, the preventative measure is to reduce the crime (stone throwing) such that a lethal threat never presents itself as a danger to police or other civilian citizenry.

The concept theory is that if the threat is eliminated, the need to employ a controversial countermeasure becomes unnecessary.

Also misstated it that "shooting of stone throwers is an Israeli law." That is not a correct interpretation. The law expands to police and security forces --- yet another option in the response to the potentially lethal stone throwing; or grievous bodily harm (GBH). In cases where the stone throwing does not present the risk of death or GBH, the use of a less lethal option is not warranted.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, et al,

You have fallen into a trap; known as logical fallacy. This is a competing conceptions sound applicable to the argument; but, in fact are equally wrong in acceptable behavioual outcomes, and are false popular beliefs that they are deceptively valid sounding.

The argument is based on equal application of a countermeasure.

• The measures, approved by the Security Cabinet on Thursday, allow police officers to fire live ammunition when there is an "immediate and concrete danger to police or civilians," according to a government statement.

Right now, Israeli law has it that stone throwers can be shot. What remains to be seen is whether it is applied across the board.

If only Jewish stone throwers get shot - that is wrong.
If only Palestinian stone throwers get shot - that is wrong.

This shooting of stone throwers is an Israeli law.

(COMMENT)

The entire objective of "law enforcement" is to provide a system in which detecting, deterring, and responding to violations of laws established by the accepted legislative system which set the standard of norms for a general situation.

By saying --- "Right now, Israeli law has it that stone throwers can be shot." --- is not the way in which the countermeasure should be expressed; it is very crude. However, it implied an equality in its application (not selective enforcement). As you have expressed it, the new available countermeasure to "stone throwing" DOES NOT distinguish between Israeli violators and Palestinian violators that present the same threat --- all other things being equal.

The object of the law is to prevent crime (Crime Prevention --- specifically the efforts made to reduce criminal activity and the consequences). "The measures, approved by the Security Cabinet on Thursday, allow police officers to fire live ammunition when there is an "immediate and concrete danger to police or civilians," according to a government statement." (Source Link) In this case, the preventative measure is to reduce the crime (stone throwing) such that a lethal threat never presents itself as a danger to police or other civilian citizenry.

The concept theory is that if the threat is eliminated, the need to employ a controversial countermeasure becomes unnecessary.

Also misstated it that "shooting of stone throwers is an Israeli law." That is not a correct interpretation. The law expands to police and security forces --- yet another option in the response to the potentially lethal stone throwing; or grievous bodily harm (GBH). In cases where the stone throwing does not present the risk of death or GBH, the use of a less lethal option is not warranted.

Most Respectfully,
R

I understand what you are saying Rocco but - here is some food for thought. The law, as written, certainly appears to be saying that it would be applied equally - but do you think the IDF and the Israeli public have the political and cultural will to do so? I can point out the many ways in which the law is not applied equally. Even, when FINALLY the IDF pulled some Jewish extremists into administrative detention there was considerable outcry and pressure not to do so. There has long been a reluctance to come down as hard on Jewish extremists as on Palestinian extremists and hidden in that is a perception amongst some that their actions are justified. Even in this law - the op ed piece I quoted - one politician wanted to make sure there was a distinction between those who threw stones out of pain and anguish and those who threw stones out of malice and desire to injure.

In your honest assessment here - how do you think they will determine this intent, and do you think a Palestinians "pain and anguish" would even be recognized as a legitimate motivation?

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

Yes, this is a thought piece; a question on the intangible quality that is part of a moral judgment, as oppose to the very cold and dry --- compliance to the strict Rule of Law.

I understand what you are saying Rocco but - here is some food for thought. The law, as written, certainly appears to be saying that it would be applied equally - but do you think the IDF and the Israeli public have the political and cultural will to do so? I can point out the many ways in which the law is not applied equally. Even, when FINALLY the IDF pulled some Jewish extremists into administrative detention there was considerable outcry and pressure not to do so. There has long been a reluctance to come down as hard on Jewish extremists as on Palestinian extremists and hidden in that is a perception amongst some that their actions are justified. Even in this law - the op ed piece I quoted - one politician wanted to make sure there was a distinction between those who threw stones out of pain and anguish and those who threw stones out of malice and desire to injure.

In your honest assessment here - how do you think they will determine this intent, and do you think a Palestinians "pain and anguish" would even be recognized as a legitimate motivation?

(COMMENT)

When I think of "pain and anguish" --- in term of a criminal case --- I see it as "motive" for the perpetrator tthat committed the crime; not as a defense. Although, a good defense lawyer could possibly build a case out of that.

Now "pain and anguish" can be thought of as a mitigating factor in the sentencing of the perpetrator. Or it can be thought of in a civil case, to collect damages or compensation. But remember, the law is decidedly in favor of the Occupying Power and the intent of the perpetrator which solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, or intentional offenses which have caused the death or serious bodily harm.

Yes it will be considered: BUT! Palestinians "pain and anguish" as a "legitimate motivation" may actually work against the perpetrator. It is not the same as self-defense.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[docmauser1]

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.

But of course, it's a palistanian occupation. The palistanian occupation, indeed.

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

Funny. It's 2015 outside, what year is that high court stuck in and how high?

Have they changed their ruling?

It's illegal to give alcohol to a moose in Alaska. Noone changed that either. But time moves on and times change, of course./size]

If not, then you have no point to make.

But off course, i have and do.

I think there is a considerable difference between a military occupation and an intoxicated moose.

The absence of the "military occupation" leaves us with an intoxicated palistanian moose, of course.

There are laws making murder murder illegal....time moves on...and times change. But murder is still murder.

That's a part of the palistanian occupation, of course. "With the blood of jews we redeem blah-blah-blah ... !!", or somesuch bullish.

 

[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."

(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.

Right now, Israeli law has it that stone throwers can be shot. What remains to be seen is whether it is applied across the board. If only Jewish stone throwers get shot - that is wrong. If only Palestinian stone throwers get shot - that is wrong. This shooting of stone throwers is an Israeli law.

Cool. So, citizens of abu mazen, ie. the occupationally palistanian, get all shot up. Not that "moral equivalence" & "proportionality" bullshit to keep limolibs happy.

...moral equivelence sems to be you and your ilk's favorite buzz word to deflect from uncomfortable realities. Kind of gives you a free pass in ethics

my ilk, is it a jooo thing?

 

[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.

Right now, Israeli law has it that stone throwers can be shot. What remains to be seen is whether it is applied across the board.

If only Jewish stone throwers get shot - that is wrong.
If only Palestinian stone throwers get shot - that is wrong.

This shooting of stone throwers is an Israeli law.

NO It is enforcing Jordanian law that stone throwers can be shot, it is not an Israeli law. Under International law Israel can not enforce their own laws on the citizens of occupied territory, they can only enforce the laws of the nation that held sovereignty of the land at the time of occupation. What don't you understand about this being an international law and that Israel is acting in accordance.

 

[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.

Right now, Israeli law has it that stone throwers can be shot. What remains to be seen is whether it is applied across the board.

If only Jewish stone throwers get shot - that is wrong.
If only Palestinian stone throwers get shot - that is wrong.

This shooting of stone throwers is an Israeli law.

NO It is enforcing Jordanian law that stone throwers can be shot, it is not an Israeli law. Under International law Israel can not enforce their own laws on the citizens of occupied territory, they can only enforce the laws of the nation that held sovereignty of the land at the time of occupation. What don't you understand about this being an international law and that Israel is acting in accordance with it.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

But of course, it's a palistanian occupation. The palistanian occupation, indeed.

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

Funny. It's 2015 outside, what year is that high court stuck in and how high?

Have they changed their ruling?

It's illegal to give alcohol to a moose in Alaska. Noone changed that either. But time moves on and times change, of course./size]

If not, then you have no point to make.

But off course, i have and do.

I think there is a considerable difference between a military occupation and an intoxicated moose.

There are laws making murder murder illegal....time moves on...and times change. But murder is still murder.

Is it as many idiots on here claim that defence of Israeli civilains is murder, yet firing illegal rockets at children is not murder but defence. so while they are doing that murder is not murder and all of the deaths are justified

 

[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."

(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.

Right now, Israeli law has it that stone throwers can be shot. What remains to be seen is whether it is applied across the board. If only Jewish stone throwers get shot - that is wrong. If only Palestinian stone throwers get shot - that is wrong. This shooting of stone throwers is an Israeli law.

Cool. So, citizens of abu mazen, ie. the occupationally palistanian, get all shot up. Not that "moral equivalence" & "proportionality" bullshit to keep limolibs happy.

...moral equivelence sems to be you and your ilk's favorite buzz word to deflect from uncomfortable realities. Kind of gives you a free pass in ethics

Do you mean like the murder in cold blood of the parents just the other day, or the murder of 3 Israeli boys last year. Both incidents carried out to incite reprisals by Israel against hamas. And of course in your eyes it is all the Jews fault as they should not be there trying to live as normal a life as is possible.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Right now, Israeli law has it that stone throwers can be shot. What remains to be seen is whether it is applied across the board. If only Jewish stone throwers get shot - that is wrong. If only Palestinian stone throwers get shot - that is wrong. This shooting of stone throwers is an Israeli law.

Cool. So, citizens of abu mazen, ie. the occupationally palistanian, get all shot up. Not that "moral equivalence" & "proportionality" bullshit to keep limolibs happy.

...moral equivelence sems to be you and your ilk's favorite buzz word to deflect from uncomfortable realities. Kind of gives you a free pass in ethics

my ilk, is it a jooo thing?

Nope. But go ahead and try to make it into a "joooo" thing - it's what you do best

 

[Coyote]

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.

Right now, Israeli law has it that stone throwers can be shot. What remains to be seen is whether it is applied across the board. If only Jewish stone throwers get shot - that is wrong. If only Palestinian stone throwers get shot - that is wrong. This shooting of stone throwers is an Israeli law.

Cool. So, citizens of abu mazen, ie. the occupationally palistanian, get all shot up. Not that "moral equivalence" & "proportionality" bullshit to keep limolibs happy.

...moral equivelence sems to be you and your ilk's favorite buzz word to deflect from uncomfortable realities. Kind of gives you a free pass in ethics

Do you mean like the murder in cold blood of the parents just the other day, or the murder of 3 Israeli boys last year. Both incidents carried out to incite reprisals by Israel against hamas.

...the murder of 3 Israeli boys followed by the kidnapping and burning alive of an Arab Israeli teenager....

or the burning alive of a Palestinian family in their home....

and you claim "moral equivalence"? There is no difference and there is no justification for any of this, or the murder of the Fogels, or the shooting of the family we are now discussing.

And of course in your eyes it is all the Jews fault as they should not be there trying to live as normal a life as is possible.

I haven't assigned fault in these actions other than by the people who did them. Try to stick with reality and what people actually have said instead of turning everything into "joooooos".