withdrawing to the pre-1967 borders is a matter of law

Jeff Goldberg does good work pointing out the simple fact that Israel withdrawing to the pre-1967 borders is in fact an idea that is so widely recognized as to be banal. I also think it's worth reminding those who are showily attacking that idea as "anti-Israel" that a large part of the reason for this is that the occupation, now in its 44 year, is a violation of international law and treaties that Israel is bound to uphold.

There are plenty of practical and moral reasons for Israel to withdraw, as I've written about for years, and certainly some of them are in the best interest of Israel, as Goldberg has written about for years. But it's always worth pointing out that Israel is a signatory and contracting power of the Geneva Conventions  and the Hague Conventions of 1907, both of which forbid the occupation. That statement is controversial, of course-- nothing regarding Israel and Palestine is not. But most would agree that the occupation violates the spirit of these treaties that Israel is bound to uphold. And certainly, I can imagine very few who would defend the legality of the destructive presence of the settlements in the occupied territories. I'm a skeptic of the practical importance of international law-- laws are made by victors-- but the symbolic importance of restoring the borders to a condition consistent with Israel's treaty obligations shouldn't be underestimated.

The shamelessness and opportunism of conservatives in government and media would astound, if movement conservatism hadn't extinguished any sparks of credibility years ago. They say that they are defending Israel while trying to perpetuate a status quo that isolates Israel internationally, dooms it through demographics to a small handful of equally noxious choices, and undermines the moral legitimacy of both the state and the righteous purpose of providing a safe home for Jews in the world. (How many movement conservatives, if they were honest and actually consistent in the application of their religious beliefs, would be forced to say that all Israeli Jews are condemned to hell?)

Solving this conflict is not merely a matter of delivering justice and self-governance to the Palestinian people; it is about restoring the legitimacy of the Israeli government and ensuring that the principles of democracy and freedom which attended its creation, albeit in a flawed and partial manner, are carried out in practice. I'm a pessimist by nature, and this conflict has defied good intentions and optimism for decades. But I am deeply encouraged by the slow evolution in our political dialogue and the rise of Palestinian activists who are dedicated to nonviolent resistance. There are always going to be those who claim that one must favor one side in an Israeli/Palestinian binary, but we must insist on nothing less than freedom, justice, and peace for both Israel and Palestine. If there's ever a time for idealism, this is it.