“…Occupation language also provides a framework for Israel's denial of the fact of occupation (Shafir, 2017) and focuses attention on legal questions associated with Israel's responsibilities towards occupied populations, such as proportionality of force, rather than focusing attention on the legality of the occupation policy itself (see also Kauanui, 2018 on Hawaii). Judicial institutions operating under conditions of occupation, including both military and civilian court systems, contribute to the maintenance of state power by providing venues for individuals to seek redress for state harms while ultimately ensuring the operationalization of impunity for state perpetrators, the criminalization of dissent, and the legalization of the state's apparatus of control (Duschinski and Ghosh, 2017;Duschinski and Hoffman, 2011;Geva, 2017Geva, , 2019Hajjar, 2005). As Feldman summarizes, "Cases such as this reveal the limits of the law as a mechanism for effecting a serious change in occupation policy, let alone as a means to bring an end to an occupation" (2018: 1609).…”