The struggle of Natan Sharansky and his fellow refuseniks for freedom in the Soviet Union was an inspiration to human rights activists around the world. But his recent article, "Breaking the Silence Is No Human Rights Organization - and I Should Know," where he criticizes Breaking the Silence, reveals that his experience does not necessarily give him insight into the norms of democracy and human rights.

Sharansky’s main complaint against Breaking the Silence, a grantee of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, is that they bring their testimonies of human rights violations by the Israeli military to foreign countries. “It is of course legitimate to believe that Israel’s military presence in the West Bank should be ended immediately,” Sharansky wrote. “But it is equally legitimate to believe that such a withdrawal would be dangerous and even catastrophic for the state. This is a political question that should be decided by Israel’s citizens through their elected representatives, not by a small group of self-appointed prophets and their chorus of foreign supporters.”

For Sharansky, the question of the occupation is an internal Israeli matter and must be kept so. It’s not a very controversial position among Israeli leaders. But it conveniently omits a very large detail: The Palestinian people living in the West Bank and Gaza. In Sharansky’s formulation, they are invisible. They play no part in deciding their own fate.

Sharansky is correct when he says that the conditions for Soviet refuseniks were very different than those the Israeli left faces. He is also correct in pointing out that this is due in great measure to the fact that the activists in Breaking the Silence live in a democracy while the Soviet Union was a dictatorship.

But his analysis stops short of considering the Palestinians’ situation under occupation. They do not live in a democracy, but under a regime of military occupation. Whether one calls the West Bank “occupied territories,” as most of the world does, or “disputed,” as Israel prefers it, the Palestinians living there cannot take part in the democratic discourse of the country that holds authority over them.

Even according to Sharansky’s own formulation, that justifies international pressure. It is right and fair that the international community engage Israel and make their own judgments on how to deal with the question of occupation. Given that most of the world is opposed to Israel’s occupation and sees it as a de-stabilizing factor in the region, it is not only right to press Israel for change, it is a diplomatic norm.

Sharansky’s characterization of advocating a cause in foreign countries as somehow unusual doesn’t match reality. Many countries, including Israel, and many NGOs, including Israeli ones, bring their views to foreign audiences. Indeed, in the internet age, views are aired and debated across the globe. Washington, London, Brussels, Paris and even Jerusalem have no shortage of international advocates who make various cases for different causes. Why is Breaking the Silence castigated for trying to court international opinion but not Israel’s own Prime Minister, who so famously and controversially did so in his speech to Congress in 2015?

Sharansky also characterizes the activities of Breaking the Silence as “us[ing] unproven allegations peddled as truths to credulous foreigners in order to override the decisions of a democratic government.”

People can decide for themselves the merits of the testimonies gathered by Breaking the Silence, an organization composed entirely of Israeli veterans who served on the ground in the West Bank and Gaza. But Sharansky should deepen his understanding of democracy. Protecting the less powerful and combating the “tyranny of the majority” are fundamental components of democracy. Occupation is a daily tyranny, and in it, serious human rights violations are inevitable, no matter how “moral” the occupying army is.

Sharansky bases his argument on the false equivalence that it is just as legitimate to believe that ending the occupation is too risky as it is to believe that the occupation must end. There is no doubt that Israel has legitimate security concerns that must be addressed, but Israel and her friends must stop pretending that this justifies holding millions of people for what is now nearly half a century, under military rule without the rights most people in the West and in Israel take for granted.

Because the Palestinians are barred from participating in Israel’s democratic debate, Breaking the Silence and other Israeli peace and human rights NGOs are entitled, even obligated, to bring the realities of occupation and the denial of rights to Palestinians to light. They do that within Israeli society every day. But Israelis arguing with Israelis is hardly the same as the Palestinian people having a real voice in the discussion. It is precisely in such situations that international appeals are not only appropriate, but a necessary part of any political struggle for human rights.

Mitchell Plitnick is the Vice President of the Foundation for Middle East Peace. Follow him on Twitter at @MJPlitnick