Identifying weak spots of the occupation

The weakest spot of the Israeli occupation is probably the free movement of Israelis on Palestinian land. This is because it can be very easily obstructed by sit-ins. Sit-ins are fairly easy to carry out and are difficult to deal with from Israel’s point of view. If the Palestinians would use this method on a large scale, the option arrest and release would require enormous resources and thus quickly become unsustainable for Israel. Israel would then have to turn to disperse which would considerably damage Israel’s reputation. That is because sit-ins come across as very peaceful measure which would make look any measure going beyond arrest and release completely disproportionate. Furthermore, disperse would only have very limited success in the long run as the activists could always come back to start sit-ins again. To resort to arrest and prevent return or even permanently incapacitate against sit-ins would lead to a loss of legitimacy which would amount to an existential threat for Israel.

Another weak spot are unmanned fences, walls and road obstacles. These are dispersed all over Palestinian land, namely in the West Bank. To protect these from being damaged or destroyed in a massive NVR campaign would require huge amount of security personnel. Checkpoints would be a bit easier for Israel to defend as they are fewer of them and they are often already manned. Since damaging or destroying objects would be perceived as less peaceful than sit-ins the loss of Israeli legitimacy by any countermeasure would likely be a bit less severe.

More difficult to target would be habitations of all kind. Palestinian activists would not only be faced with Israeli security personnel but also with the inhabitants. They might react more aggressively and less predictably than members of the security force for three reasons: They are untrained, their homes are targeted which is very intrusive and they are more susceptible to be ideological hardliners who believe that God gave them the land and that the Palestinians are just intruders.  

Within the habitation, outposts would be the weakest targets. They are usually isolated and therefore difficult to shield from NVR. Furthermore, many of them are illegal under Israeli law which would reduce the incentive for Israeli decision makers to defend them at all cost. Settlements legal under Israeli law are more compact and therefore easier to protect from NVR. Having to give them up would more or less end the whole colonial project. There is therefore more at stake and Israel would likely deploy more resources to counter NVR. The stiffest Israeli resistance is to be expected when it comes to East Jerusalem which is viewed by most Israelis as the “eternal and indivisible” capital of Israel.

The best approach would be to target the weakest spots first to maximize the effects with a minimum of resources. NVR should therefore start with sit-ins to restrict the free movement of Israelis. Depending on how well-crafted a mass campaign of sit-ins would be, it could maybe be sufficient to end the occupation.

If the desired results are not achieved, the next step would be to start targeting fences, walls, obstacles, then move on to checkpoints. If NVR is successful there, it is quite likely that at this point latest the whole occupation system would unravel and that the Israeli settlers would consider giving up the habitations themselves. In any case, Israel’s position would be severely weakened, Palestinians would have gained experience. Targeting habitations would then become much easier. 

Its should be noted that it would be virtually impossible to obtain the control over airspace and free access to the sea from the Gaza coastline through NVR. Israel could simply confiscate all boats and planes.