Those demanding that Israel immediately “end its occupation” of the West Bank routinely make their case in legal terms: the Jewish state’s presence outside the 1948 armistice lines is “illegal”; Palestinians have a “right” to their own state in the West Bank and Gaza; the rights of Palestinians are being violated daily. Ruth Gavison contends that this approach, in addition to misapplying the principles of international law, misconstrues a political issue as a legal issue. (Free registration may be required.)

According to [those who address the question in terms of rights], an agreement with the Palestinians isn’t based on painful concessions from both sides but on pressure on Israel to make it do what it must. . . . [This understanding] is based on the assumption that such a step will change the conditions that led to the war in 1967 [so that] Israel will no longer face military and diplomatic challenges that reject its right to exist as the national home of the Jewish people.

Translating the question of the occupation into the language of law and human rights conceals the political, security, and ideological aspects that are supposed to be decided in the political arena. This is how, in Israel, [opponents of current policies] have taken to legal wrangling whose goal is to remove Jewish residents from the places claimed to be illegal, or to exposure of Israeli soldiers’ [alleged] violations of the laws of war.

Accordingly, civil-society organizations depict their fight against the occupation as a fight for human rights or the rule of law. This has implications both in Israel and abroad. Countries aren’t supposed to intervene in political struggles in another country. But if there is a violation of human rights or democracy itself—[so-called] “international” values—the ban on intervention is weakened. And many Western countries rely on this distinction when they finance civil-society groups in foreign countries.

Adherence to this legalistic and human-rights discourse only convinces Israel’s Jews that they have no one to talk to and nothing to talk about because [such rhetoric] isn’t a genuine invitation to negotiations [that could lead to a variety of outcomes] but a demand that Israel take certain actions [unilaterally]. . . .

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.