In the most recent of many anti-Israel declarations, the Swedish foreign minister, Margot Wallstrom, publicly accused the Jewish state of violating international law by carrying out “extrajudicial executions”; her reference was to the shooting by security forces of terrorists in the midst of carrying out lethal attacks. Jerusalem responded by declaring Wallstrom unwelcome in the country. Noah Feldman writes:
Wallstrom referred to . . . “the importance of the principles of proportionality and distinction.” Proportionality and distinction belong to the body of international law governing the use of military force in wartime against combatants.
But these principles don’t apply to domestic police arresting civilians committing violence, like the stabbers in Israel. . . . This is especially important because Wallstrom went out of her way to emphasize that “21 Israelis and 100 Palestinians were killed in connection with knife attacks, acts of violence, demonstrations, and clashes.” The numbers are legally irrelevant.
That also makes moral sense. Police making arrests aren’t morally or legally obligated to allow innocent people to die in order to balance the number of deaths of criminal attackers. Effective police are supposed to save the innocent and subdue the attackers, by lethal means if necessary. . . .
Wallstrom’s legal error is thus also a moral error, reflected in her statement that Israelis and Palestinians “were killed in connection with knife attacks.” The Israelis in question were killed by Palestinians wielding knives. Insofar as it’s possible to determine, the Palestinians in question were killed after they wielded the knives, attacking Israelis. There’s a crucial moral difference between the two kinds of “connection” to the knife attacks.
Read more on Bloomberg: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-01-14/sweden-s-foreign-minister-misunderstands-international-law