Well, from the figures on the site of the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights there's a figure for the number killed up from 1987 until the end of January 2002, with a breakdown by age. (That includes the first intifada). One hundred and one children aged 13 and under (out of 409 who were under the age of 17.)

I imagine quite a large proportion of them would have been throwing stones. Some would have had catapults or sling shots. There were a lot of terrible things done in Northern Ireland over the years, and a lot of stone throwing by children and youths, but few cases of children aged 13 and under being shot dead. I can't recall any other conflict where this has happened on this scale.

I don't believe that Israeli soldiers are more brutal than British soldiers, and I don't believe Palestinian kids are more reckless than Irish kids in the same circumstances.

There has to be some difference in the rules of engagement, so that it is expected of Israeli soldiers that they should shoot stone throwers in circumstances where the danger from the stone-throwers would not have been seen as justifying lethal fire if it had been Derry or Belfast, and regardless of such issues as age.

I think it would be a positive thing, consistent with this thread, to get some clearer idea of what the rules of engagement actually are in this conflict, and how they compare to those which have been in operations in analogous conflicts which have not had such a high child death toll.