When discussing things like these, you should first decide whether you want to argue around the moral aspects of it or the legal aspects of it. Doing both at once will only lead to complete confusion.
Lets start with the legal aspects of this issue.
Before we can do anything about the conflict in Israel, we need to define it, or "put a label on it". Is this a war, a civil war, or just internal unrest? The difference is enormous when it comes to possible outside involvement.
Lets start with civil wars. A civil war can be defined as a war between two or more groups of inhabitants of the same states one of which may be the government. It may be fought for the control of the government of a state or it may be caused by the desire of part of the population to secede and form a new state. There are however other types of civil wars. For example, a rebelling group may simply try to force the government to make concessions (grant regional autonomy), a civil war may even be fought between parties while the government remains passive and neutral (Lebanon 1975-76).
The problem of civil wars have grown in the last years, since states seldom attack other states in order to enlarge their territory. Instead they increase their influence by encouraging factions sharing their own ideology to seize or retain power in other states.
So what does international law have to say about civil wars?
There is no rule in international law against civil wars. Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use or threat of force in international relations only. There is however one rule that might apply here. The use of force to frustrate the exercise of a legal right to self-determination is generally regarded as illegal, but such wars (wars of national liberation) are classified as civil wars. More about that later.
So between the two fighting sides in a civil war international law is not applicable. In such a situation the conduct of the fighting forces are ruled by other laws, such as the Geneva conventions on the laws of war.
Participation by outsiders? As a general rule, foreign states are forbidden to give help to insurgents in a civil war. General assembly rule 2131 (XX) declares that "no State shall organize, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another state, or interfere in civil strife in another State"
On a sidenote, Nicaragua took the US to the International court of Justice in the case Nicaragua vs USA ICJ Rep. 1986 The US refused to accept the jurisdiction of the court, and thus the courts findings in the case were null and void. It is also kinda amusing that the US, being a permanent member of the security counsel has a permanent right to have one judge in the court, and the US uses this right…but she still refuses to accept the jurisdiction of the court.
Moreover, to send troops to the territory of a state without the consent of the government of that state is invasion which is listed in article 3(a) of the General assembly's definition of aggression, as a form of aggression, and therefore a form of armed attack. Thus giving the government in the state the right to self defence. (Compare with the situation in Kosovo if you will).
To supply insurgents with weapons does not constitute an armed attack, but it is nevertheless illegal, and it gives the injured state the right to adopt proportionate countermeasures against the wrongdoing state.
Self-determination and the use of force...this is where it gets interesting
The principle of self-determination refers to the right of a people living in a territory to determine the political and legal status of that territory. This right is explicitly mentioned in the UN Charter in article 1(2) and in Article 55. Problem is that these provisions are vague, and it is doubtful whether they lend themselves to establishing specific rights and duties. Basically the articles tells us that there is such a thing as a right to self-determination, but they fail to tell us how this right is exercised, and what duties the surrounding or controlling states have towards the people wanting to express their rights.
If a people of a particular territory are regarded by international law as possessing a legal right to self-determination but the state administering the that territory refuses to let them exercise that right, they may need to fight a war of national liberation in order to achieve self-determination in practice. Such a war would be a civil war, and all the laws regarding civil wars would apply. This is one of the rare cases where a war of aggression (against the government) is lawful. The situation gets very complicated very fast however. It is clear that international law is not applicable on a civil war, but it is also clear that there is a general consensus that any state trying to prohibit one peoples right to self-determination is in violation of international law.
So what happens if one state (lets take Israel as the hypothetical example here) uses force to prevent a people (and lets take the Palestinian people here, just for arguments sake) from exercising their right to self-determination? Well, first, lets establish the ground rules here. The General assembly of the United Nations has declared that the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination. Problem is that the General assembly did not specify in which area the Pals had this right. Were they talking about the Gaza strip and the west bank (which would be most logical) or the entire area of present day Israel? (which would of course lead to the conclusion that the Israelis would have to move somewhere else). Anyway, lets continue in our hypothetical example. While it is true that violation of the right to self-determination is a violation of international law, this doesnt really mean that much. Because breaches of one state of international rules are not treated as justifying other states to breach international law too. See above regarding helping insurgents in a civil war.
So what does this all tell us? Well, basically it says that the Israelis are breaking international law when they are preventing the Pals from excercising their right to self-determination. It also tells us that the Pals have the right to self-determination. But it doesnt say where the pals have the right to self determination. The situation can be compared to that one of the Kurds. Having the right to self determination is not the same thing as the right to an independent nation. One must remember that. It also tells us that it is illegal for any state to help the Pals in any way, with either military force or the supply of arms. What is required here? Yup..a resolution from the security counsel ordering Israel to stop their actions against the Pals, after that the security counsel can decide on embargoes or even war against Israel…after that, and only after that, can any other country come to the aid of the Pals…
Does anyone think that will ever happen?
So, where does all this leave us?
The conflict in Israel today can be described as internal unrest, or a civil war (if you are stretching it) In neither of these cases is international law applicable. That leaves us with Israeli national law, and some general rules of warfare etc. It is not against the rules of war to assassinate valid military targets. Terrorist leaders, members of the Palestine security staff, members of the Palestinian police force are all considered combatants, and thus valid military targets. It is however, against both national law, as well as the general rules of warfare to use suicide bombers to blow up children. You have your three typical groups of palestinian "freedom fighters", first there are the stoneheads. They take to the streets throwing rocks at Israeli police and military, now there is a smart move right there, "lets see, I'll throw this big rock at that tank, that'll scare them off". Then you have the second group, strapping bombs on themselves to take out busses, cars and airplanes filled with people. They just want to kill civilians, as many as possible. Then you have a third group who snipes at 10 months old babies, drive their busses into busstops crowded with people or lay outside jewish settlements at night sniping at lit windows. All of these guys are in violation of either national law, or the laws of war.
As for the child throwing rocks. There is a very very easy way for him to escape injury STAY AT HOME instead of running around in the street hurling rocks at every Israeli soldier. If it were your 10 yr old son, would you allow him to do that?
"-Dad, today I want to be with my friends to throw rocks at the Israeli tanks. They will probably shoot at us, but all my friends are going, can I go too?". -Sure son, just make sure your home before supper"
Let me ask you, what could they possibly hope to achieve by throwing all those rocks? Do they think that if they throw enough rocks then the Israeli government will finally surrender? "Well, yesterday 4000 rocks were thrown at our checkpoint, that brings the total up to 190.000, better surrender the west bank to the arabs"? If they want media attention, well, there are better ways of achieving that. Blow up a buss, and every tv station in the world will cover it.
