Collective Punishment
The first legal term from international law to be deployed against Israel in such a unique manner, even before proportionality, was collective punishment. The temptations that this term offered are a small version of what the entire discourse seems to relish in—the thrill of throwing a term that immediately conjures up Nazi associations at the Jewish state.

Occupation

Proportionality and collective punishment are both technical terms that are easy to misuse as moral terms in everyday speech, which is perhaps why they lend themselves so easily to bespoke redefinition.

Occupation is a bit different. Occupation isn’t a moral term. It describes a (temporary) legal status caused by war. When the army of one state holds territory that previously belonged to another state, that territory is considered occupied until a new political arrangement is established. A territory is normally occupied during or immediately after a war. Occupations are not illegal, but an occupying army has certain legal obligations as spelled out in two bodies of international law, the 1907 Hague Convention and the more detailed 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention.

The Final Term

In the world of global activists, there is a near-theological devotion to the postulate that Israel is uniquely evil, standing in the way of global brotherhood, and that good people everywhere would see that clearly if networks of powerful people weren’t using their money and influence to distort the truth and silence critique. The only way to make this pathology sound like a reasoned political program is to resort to international law. The argument is: there are laws and Israel is violating them, therefore my consuming hatred of Israel is just an application of these higher principles. It is necessary to stick to this conceit, otherwise their obsessive pathology starts looking like, well, an obsessive pathology.