In fact, Israel's refusal to abide by this longstanding international consensus apparently puts its occupation squarely in the same category as Iraq's illegal occupation of Kuwait. "[A]n occupation regime that refuses to earnestly contribute to efforts to reach a peaceful solution should be considered illegal," Tel Aviv University law professor Eyal Benvenisti opines:

          Indeed, such a refusal should be considered outright annexation.
The occupant has a duty under international law to conduct
negotiations in good faith for a peaceful solution. It would
seem that an occupant who proposes unreasonable conditions, or
otherwise obstructs negotiations for peace for the purpose of
retaining control over the occupied territory, could be
considered a violator of international law.[5]

"The continued rule of the recalcitrant occupant," Benvenisti adds, should be construed "as an aggression."[6]

Taken from:

 ZNet | Israel/Palestine

"Distorting Camp David"

by Norman Finkelstein; The Jerusalem Fund; April 27, 2007

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=12683