In 2009, a comprehensive report by the Human Rights Research Council of South
Africa found that Israeli practices in the occupied Palestinian territory were
overwhelmingly consistent with apartheid (see annex I). Israel has not accepted
those findings, however, on several grounds. Those who claim that Israel does not
govern Palestinians in an apartheid regime invariably cite conditions and rights for
Palestinians in domain 1 (citizens of Israel). Leaving aside the issue of domain 2, they
say that the situation of Palestinians in the occupied territory is irrelevant to the
question. That approach can be persuasive at first glance. Palestinians in the
occupied Palestinian territory are not citizens of Israel and, under the laws of war (cf.
the Fourth Geneva Convention), are not supposed to be. The differential treatment
by Israel of citizens and non-citizens in the occupied Palestinian territory could
therefore seem admissible or, at least, irrelevant. In this common view, Israel would
be practicing apartheid only if it annexed the territory, declared one State in all of
Mandate Palestine and, thereafter, continued to deny equal rights to Palestinians.
Influential voices such as former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, former United
States President Jimmy Carter, former United States Secretary of State John Kerry,
and a host of Israeli, American and other critics and pundits have warned that Israel
should withdraw from the West Bank precisely to avoid that scenario.
However, those warnings rest on flawed assumptions. First, Israel already
administers the occupied Palestinian territory in ways consistent with apartheid,
given that the territory has not one population but two: (a) Palestinian civilians,
governed by military law; and (b) some 350,000 Jewish settlers, governed by Israeli
civil law. The racial character of this situation is evidenced by the fact that all West
Bank settlers are administered by Israeli civil law on the basis of being Jewish,
whether they are Israeli citizens or not.
78 Thus, Israel administers the West Bank
through a dual legal system, based on race, which has led to expressions of concern
by, among many others, former special rapporteurs Mr. Dugard and Mr. Falk.
Secondly, the character of this dual legal system, problematic in itself, is
aggravated by how the State of Israel manages land and development on the basis
of race. By denying Palestinians essential zoning, building and business permits,
Israeli military rule has crippled the Palestinian economy and society, leaving
Palestinian cities and towns (outside the Ramallah enclave) increasingly underresourced
and suffocating their growth and the welfare of their inhabitants. The
Israeli blockade of Gaza has resulted in even worse living conditions for the
entrapped Palestinian population there.
In contrast, Jewish settlements in the West Bank are flourishing. All State
ministries provide support for their planning, funding, building and servicing;
some, such as the Ministry of Construction and Housing and the Ministry of
Agriculture and Rural Development, have been entirely committed to doing so.
They also offer financial incentives for Jews to move to the settlements, including
interest-free loans, school grants, special recreational facilities, new office blocks,
agricultural subsidies, job training and employment guarantees. State complicity is
further demonstrated by measures to integrate the economy, society and politics
of Jewish settlements into those of Israel, generating seamless travel and
electricity networks, a unified banking and finance system for Jews, Jewish
business investment, and, in particular, a customs union.79
