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]. . . .
Read more on Haaretz: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.798750