The problem is that sometimes the Palestinians not only complain, but also sue for physical injuries or property damage. In that case, the lawsuit is also dismissed, but it's a costly process. The Israeli state is trying to diminish that cost by limiting the instances in which a soldier is civilly liable for his actions.
Up to now, Israeli legislation states that the country is not liable for a military operation executed in a situation of war. Such situations are defined as those in which the soldiers' lives are endangered.Thus, for instance, the soldier who killed a protester with a tear gas canister last July is civilly liable, because the protest was peaceful and his life was not at risk.
That is about to change under a proposed new bill, which will dramatically reduce the Palestinians' ability to sue the State. But the grounds for doing so are quite interesting. According to the Jerusalem Post:
Under the current law, any soldier, whether operating in Israel or in the West Bank or a foreign country, must prove that his life was in danger for his actions to be considered a military operation.
According to the state's new proposal, that obligation would not apply to soldiers in the West Bank or foreign countries because the law assumes that the lives of soldiers operating outside Israel are inherently in danger.
The West Bank is, thus, considered outside enough for the lives of soldiers serving there to be deemed in danger --in a danger they would not face inside Israel--, but not enough not to build settlements there. Now this is not a Freudian slip; it's just yet another instance of cyinical Israeli equivocation.
If and when Israel returns any significant portion of the West Bank to the Palestinians (and it's a big "if" and a big "when") , the country will not be making any generous, much less painful, concession. It will just be giving back a territory that is, by its own admission, outside its borders.