The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the main arbiter of the Geneva Convention’s regulations, frequently describes the West Bank and even the Gaza Strip as “Occupied Palestinian Territories.” Yet, Alan Baker writes, this phrase—also used by the UN—wildly misapplies the laws the ICRC is tasked with protecting:

The classical rules of occupation are set out in the international law of armed conflict and specifically in the 1907 Hague Regulations and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention. . . . [T]he Hague Regulations define a territory as occupied when it comes “under the control of a hostile army.” The Fourth Geneva convention goes further and requires that the territory of a “High Contracting Party [i.e., a signatory of the Convention] comes under partial or total occupation.” . . .

[But] the sovereign status [of the West Bank and Gaza] is legally unclear or non-existent and as such cannot be seen as “territory of a High Contracting Party” as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. The legal questionability of Jordan’s pre-1967 sovereignty in the West Bank, as well as Egypt’s self-admitted non-sovereign military administration of the Gaza Strip, [cast doubt on] whether the classic and simplistic concept of belligerent occupation could be legally relevant and applicable to Israel’s unique situation in the territories.

It is well known that prior to 1967, Jordan’s annexation of, and claim to sovereignty in, the West Bank were not accepted in the international community, except for the UK and Pakistan. Jordan’s claim to east Jerusalem was not accepted even by the UK. . . .

Meanwhile, by contrast, the ICRC and the UN almost never use “occupation” or related terms to refer to the numerous textbook cases of military occupation across the globe. Baker concludes:

Thus, the use by the international community of the terms “belligerent occupation” and “occupied territory” almost exclusively to refer to Israel’s status in the territories has taken on a distinct politicized connotation that ignores the legal, historical, and political situation on the ground. The terms extend far beyond the simplistic rubrics foreseen in the definitions. . . .

This runs counter to the ICRC’s very basic fundamental principles of “impartiality, neutrality, and independence” as required and defined in the Preamble to the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. The cumulative effect of such legally flawed assumptions in effect prejudges the central negotiating issue between Israel and the PLO—namely, the permanent status of the territories. That issue constitutes an agreed-upon negotiating issue pursuant to the 1993 Oslo Accords in which the Palestinians themselves agreed to negotiate the permanent status of the territory.

Two extraordinary events demonstrate something important about Israel’s most fervent adversaries. One was a speech given at something called The People’s Forum (funded generously by Goldman Sachs), which stated, “When the state of Israel is finally destroyed and erased from history, that will be the single most important blow we can give to destroying capitalism and imperialism.”

The suggestion that this tiny state is the linchpin of a global, centuries-old phenomenon like capitalism goes well beyond anything resembling rational criticism. Even if Israel were guilty of genocide, apartheid, and oppression—which of course it is not—it would not follow that its destruction would help end capitalism or imperialism.

The other was an anti-Israel protest that took place in front of New York City’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, deemed “complicit” in Israel’s evils. At organizers’ urging, participants shouted their slogans at kids in the cancer ward, who were watching from the windows. Given Hamas’s indifference toward the lives of Gazan children, such callousness toward non-Palestinian children from Hamas’s Western allies shouldn’t be surprising. The protest—like the abovementioned speech—deliberately conveyed the message that Israel is the ultimate evil and its destruction the ultimate good, cancer patients be damned.

The fact that Israel’s adversaries are almost comically perverse does not mean that they can be dismissed. If its allies fail to understand the obsessive and irrational hatred that it faces, they cannot effectively help it defend itself.