First a few words about Gavison: she is one of Israel’s most respected legal scholars, and she has put decades of work into formulating a constitutional framework for Israel as a Jewish and Democratic State. She has tried to show that the Jewish Nation State can be consistent with and grounded on international law, and has tried to find ways to meet the needs of both Israel’s secular and religious constituencies. In other words: her life’s work is largely to give the Zionist project a legal grounding. Let me also add that Gavison always makes sure to be as careful and precise as possible in her formulations, and takes her responsibility as legal scholar and public intellectual extremely seriously.

 

The bottom line of Gavison’s article is simple and crystal clear. Any way you may look at it, Israel’s settlement activity in the West Bank is illegal according to international law. In fact, according to the Treaty of Rome endorsed in 1998 settling the population of a conquering country in occupied territory is considered a war crime. She makes clear that no reading of international law supports the conclusion of the Edmond Levy committee that claims that Israeli settlements are legal.

 

Gavison’s urgent recommendation to any future government is to embark on a negotiated solution with the Palestinians as soon as possible. She warns that if the conflict is not solved, Israel will be in a very weak position. If the Palestinians and the international community will resort to a legalistic approach, Israel might well find itself under sanctions and unable to insist on its legitimate security needs, like a demilitarization of the West Bank.

 

Gavison, I reemphasize, is not only a highly respected legal authority, but also extremely cautious. I am convinced that she has thought through every aspect of her argument countless times. Her conclusion is crystal-clear: Israel may soon find itself in a truly threatening situation. Playing at ‘we want negotiations, but the Palestinians don’t fulfill preconditions like recognizing Israel as a Jewish state’ is not enough: a solution must actually be achieved.

 

This is deeply opposed to Israeli political culture of the last decades. As the former Shin Bet Chiefs interviewed in Dror Moreh’s highly praised documentary ‘The Gatekeepers’ keep reiterating, Israel’s political leaders always avoided formulating a clear strategic goal on the Palestinian conflict. The reticence of Israeli politicians to address the Israel-Palestine conflict has good reasons: the left was practically wiped off the political map because it is seen as responsible for the second Intifada, and very few politicians are willing to take any further risks in this direction.

 

As a result Israel’s political discourse is largely based on the mistaken assumption that the status quo of the occupation can be perpetuated indefinitely. This was reflected in the recent election campaign: most politicians shy away from even touching on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Only Tsippi Livni and Meretz made the two state solution central to their campaigns.

 

The only other politician who took a clear stance was Naftali Bennett who is in favor of annexing sixty percent of the West Bank. Gavison’s legal analysis makes clear that this is an illusion. The Knesset has no legal jurisdiction over the West Bank, and even if Bennett’s idea would be implemented, the international community would reject this as a clear breach of international law.

 

The status quo is bound to fall apart, and given Gavison’s analysis there are basically two scenarios: in the first Netanyahu will continue stalling and continue settlement expansion, and then, as Gavison warns, Israel is bound to come under unprecedented international political and legal pressure and isolation. Ultimately Israel will be forced into a solution of the Palestinian Problem that not only undermines its vital needs, but will be imposed through sanctions, international pressure and harm Israel’s strategic alliances enormously.

 

The positive scenario would be that the next government would find the political will and strength to truly move ahead on Israel/Palestine. Ideally, as Yechezkel Dror has pointed out, such a move would include attempts to integrate the solution of the conflict with the Palestinians in a wider, regional approach.

 

The good news is that this way of thinking is now represented in the Knesset by politicians with strong security backgrounds like Yaakov Peri and Amram Mitzna who have endorsed the Israel Peace Initiative, that proposes a regional approach to Middle Eastern peace (for fair disclosure: I am a co-signatory of this initiative). We can only hope that they will have sufficient influence to make the next government change course, and that the creative, proactive and entrepreneurial spirit that characterizes Israel in many other areas, will replace years of political paralysis.