This article analyses the legal regulation of the use of force in international law in the context of three emerging Palestinian forms of struggle against Israeli occupation: the Knife Intifada, the disturbances at the border, and the launching of incendiary kites. It discusses what legal paradigms or concepts should regulate the type and level of force used in each situation – a question that is complicated by various dilemmas – and finally, appraises the Israel Defence Forces policies tailored in response. The article evaluates the applicability of two legal paradigms regulating the use of force in military operations – (i) the conduct of hostilities and (ii) law enforcement – as well as the concept of personal self-defence in international law and the escalation of force procedure. While the Knife Intifada clearly falls under the law enforcement paradigm, the disturbances at the border and the launching of incendiary kites raise more difficult legal questions. Categorising them under a paradigm of law enforcement is less straightforward, and may have undesirable ramifications for safeguarding humanitarian interests. The article argues that the use of force in the disturbances at the border and the incendiary kites cases should be regulated by the concept of self-defence and escalation of force procedure, and that the application of the self-defence concept should be adapted, mutatis mutandis, to situations of law enforcement and to situations of hostilities.

本文分析了在三种新出现的巴勒斯坦反以色列占领斗争形式下的国际法使用武力的法律规定：刀叉起义，边界动乱和放火风筝。它讨论了什么样的法律范式或概念应规范每种情况下使用的武力的类型和水平（这个问题因各种难题而变得复杂），最后评估了针对这种情况而量身定制的以色列国防军的政策。本文评估了两种规范军事行动中使用武力的法律范式的适用性-（i）敌对行为和（ii）执法-以及国际法中的人身自卫概念和武力升级程序。尽管“起义刀”显然属于执法范式，但边境的骚乱和火药的发射引发了更为棘手的法律问题。将它们归类为执法范式不太容易，并且可能在维护人道主义利益方面产生不良后果。文章认为，应通过自卫和升级武力程序来规范边界和骚乱风筝案件中的武力使用，并应调整自卫概念的适用范围，并可能对维护人道主义利益产生不利影响。文章认为，应通过自卫和升级武力程序来规范边界和骚乱风筝案件中的武力使用，并应调整自卫概念的适用范围，并可能对维护人道主义利益产生不利影响。文章认为，应通过自卫和升级武力程序来规范边界和骚乱风筝案件中的武力使用，并应调整自卫概念的适用范围，比照执法情况和敌对情况。