Human Rights Watch has just issued a report labeling Israel as a practitioner of apartheid, the system of racial separation employed in South Africa before its transformation.
Alan, thank you for these posts, and for engaging in the comment threads.
Is there anything to the argument that the GC does not apply here because the territories in question were not (legitimately) territory of another state at the time that Israel captured them (in, as you note, a defensive war)? I have seen this argument made by various pro-Israel commentators and it strikes me as highly compelling. But I am an outsider to these issues, so I can't render a judgment (so to speak).
Also, what is the standing of the Oslo Accords under international law? Does the fact that the PLO accepted the division of the territories in to Areas designated A, B, and C matter? Or have the accords effectively expired because they were mean to be transitory?
Matthew, Thanks for your thoughtful response. The argument you outline is a major part of the defense Israel makes for the settlements -- it's called "the missing reversioner." But it isn't accepted outside of Israel, since in the view of most international legal experts the limits on what an occupier can do apply even if the legal claim of the previous occupier of the territory in question is not generally recognized, Jordan's was not.
The Oslo Accords set out a transition period during which further agreements would be reached (with the A,B, and C divisions being superseded by something else). The time has expired, but the accords did not set out what would happen in that case. Both sides have on occasion said that they are therefore not bound by Oslo, yet have condemned the other for violations of it. This would indicate some level of understanding that Oslo is still at least a point of reference, and de facto observation of most of it (except when it's not convenient).
This is not an issue that can be resolved by definitions. When people from Europe spread out to take over the rest of the world, they interacted with the indigenous populations in a variety of ways. In Mexico and Central America, they settled and intermarried. In India, they carried out administrative functions for fixed periods and then retired back in England. In the United States and Argentina, they simply exterminated the indigenous peoples.
South Africa and Palestine represented yet another model, where the indigenous population was too large (and too needed) to exterminate, so the settlers took the land and subordinated, isolated and refused social equality with the indigenous population. I suspect that HRW and others have picked up the Apartheid sobriquet because of the similarity of the South African Bantustans and the remaining islands of the Palestinian population.
And yet, the Jews, not the Arabs are the population that is indigenous to the area. Jews have lived on the land continuously, in greater or lesser numbers, for 4000 years. Words have meanings and "definitions." Issues may not be resolved by definitions, but they can certainly be obfuscated by the misuse of defined terms.
I have a few issues with this otherwise balanced opinion piece.
" a legitimate comparison to apartheid by allowing its own civilian population to settle in occupied territory, in violation of the Geneva Convention. "
I am not aware of any law or clause in the G.C. that requires the occupying power to prevent individuals from choosing to build homes on unowned, disputed land.
"The first of the six paragraphs in Article 49 is by far the most important, in that it prohibits the forcible transfer or deportation from occupied territory of protected persons.
There is doubtless no need to give an account here of the painful recollections called forth by the "deportations" of the Second World War, for they are still present in everyone's memory."
There is no "transfer", and no "forcible" involved in Jews choosing to build homes anywhere in Judea and Samaria.
"This has established two classes of residents, one with full citizenship rights and one with none."
Not exactly. As was pointed out, over 90% of the Palestinian Arab population living in areas A and B are citizens of the Palestinian Authority.
"It has also led to the building of a separate infrastructure, of roads and utilities, for the benefit of one group only."
Again, there is no legal impediment to the P.A. building roads, towns (e.g. Rawabi), digging wells in Areas A and B which are entirely under P.A. civil control, or in Gaza, under Hamas.
"It is also enforced segregation and inequality."
I am not clear on how that conclusion is reached in view of the autonomy of the P.A. and Hamas.
"those on the right who denounce any criticism of Israel as antisemitism."
There is an internationally accepted IHRA definition of antisemitism which specifically excludes criticism of Israeli policies from such denigration.
Falsely accusing Israel of "apartheid" however', like accusing Israel of being a "Nazi state", are delegitimizing terms meant to demonize the country and its people, and to prepare the groundwork for acceptance of calls for its dissolution. When directed at the only Jewish state on earth (and no other state), that is clearly "antisemitism" by any definition.
I understand that this reply should be directed to Bill, not Bob. In any event, I understand Geneva to forbid the transfer of population, voluntary or not, into occupied territory. The word "forcible" does not appear. This is in fact the generally accepted reading. As for the P.A.: it is not a sovereign government and the Arabs living in the West Bank, whether Area A, B. or C, are definitely in an inferior status. I would agree that a double standard applied to Israel is a marker of antisemitism, but criticism of Israeli occupation is not ipso facto a double standard.
Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: "Article 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive."
It is very clear. Now lawyers can interpret as they are wont to do, and judges (if there were any competent to judge this issue) could render a legally binding verdict. But "transfer" does mean "transfer", and not a voluntary decision by one or another individual to build a home.
I am not clear on how, specifically, Arabs under the P.A. in Areas A and B are "inferior"; and "inferior" to what, exactly?
And once again, criticism of any policy of any country is perfectly legitimate. Demonization and delegitimization of any country is not. And when that delegitimization is applied to the singular Jewish state on earth, the term"antisemitism" applies.
The operative clause is at the end of Article 49: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." As for Arabs living under the PA: the powers of the PA are circumscribed in all kinds of ways, access to resources like water is limited, roads are closed, travel is tightly restricted, roadblocks (for Arabs) are everywhere. Compared to the Jewish settlers who travel freely into Israel and have full legal rights in a fully independent country, this is clearly an inferior status.
1) There is no requirement that the "occupying country" PREVENT anyone from choosing to build on unowned, disputed land. There is no question of any Israeli citizen being "deported" or "transferred" anywhere. So no law, including the G.C., is being violated. So there is no "legitimate comparison to apartheid".
2) "This has established two classes of residents, one with full citizenship rights and one with none."
We apparently agree that "none" is incorrect. You suggest that the P.A. citizenship has reduced rights.
3) "It has also led to the building of a separate infrastructure, of roads and utilities, for the benefit of one group only." It seems we also agree that it is NOT "only one group that benefits". Just that the citizens of the P.A. benefit less.
4) And the "less" that you suggest the Palestinians suffer is " roads are closed, travel is tightly restricted, roadblocks (for Arabs) are everywhere." But is that not defensive measures as a direct result of the continuous attempts at terror attacks and the murder of thousands of Israelis? How could anyone suggest that that in any way approaches the definition of "apartheid"?
5) Finally, while apartheid was a policy of segregation that the white South Africa government enforced against its black citizens, simply on the basis of race, the only reason that Israelis are in Judea and Samaria is because the Arabs attacked them in 1967, seeking to exterminate the Jewish population of Israel. There is no comparison between the two situations.
1. 4 Geneva 49 is generally interpreted to cover not allowing your own citizens to move into territory you have occupied. You can have your own interpretation if you wish, but you won't convince most of the international legal community.
2. The P.A. residents have no Israeli citizenship rights. Their rights as citizens of the P.A. are clearly of much less benefit than the rights enjoyed by the Jewish settlers. More than "none" perhaps, but still quite unequal.
3. For much of the infrastructure, it is only the Jewish settlers who benefit. The Palestinians have had some benefit, especially in earlier years, but again it is a situation of institutionalized inequality.
4. If the settlements were not there, there would be no need for defensive measures. I condemn Palestinian violence, but the end result is still a heavily-guarded separation.
5. I consider the 1967 war to be a defensive war for Israel, but its history is more complicated than you suggest and it did not necessarily involve allowing settlement in territory occupied.
1) I quote the law as written. It very clearly says what it says. The "international legal community" will interpret it as it will, especially in the absence of any legally binding verdict by any competent court; and it will NOT be in favor of the Jewish state. The same can be said of the many "laws" that the "international community interprets" to condemn Israel repeatedly, and in my mind unjustly. In fact, your entire article is arguing against the HRW, and the international community's "interpretation" of the delegitimizing term "apartheid". It comes down to "This is OUR belief; don't confuse us with the facts!" (BTW, the fact that the law, as written, is problematic for "the international community" is that they had to go back in 1998, and change the wording, in an effort to make it fit their anti-Israel narrative.)
2) "The P.A. residents have no Israeli citizenship rights. ". And that is EXACTLY why the label of "apartheid" cannot be applied. Jordanian and Lebanese citizens also have no Israeli citizenship rights. Their rights are also unequal with those of(even the Arab) citizens of Israel. Your argument seems to be that unless a fully independent "Palestine" comes into existence, Israel is guilty, or can be "interpreted" to be guilty of apartheid.
3) I don't know what the argument here is. Israel provides its citizens with "infrastructure". The P.A. is responsible for providing infrastructure to its citizens. It chooses not to (and to steal the billions of dollars donated). It is the same argument with COVID vaccines. Are you suggesting that the resulting "inequality" approaches the definition of "apartheid"?
4) The settlements are there as a result of Israeli administration of the area (and legally so, as I have argued.) Israel administers the area as a result of its successful self-defence in 1967. Following your argument, there would have been no war in 1967, if Israel had simply not been there. Funny. That is what the Arabs have been saying since the 1920 riots.
We may have to leave it at that, and agree to disagree.
Alan, thank you for these posts, and for engaging in the comment threads.
Is there anything to the argument that the GC does not apply here because the territories in question were not (legitimately) territory of another state at the time that Israel captured them (in, as you note, a defensive war)? I have seen this argument made by various pro-Israel commentators and it strikes me as highly compelling. But I am an outsider to these issues, so I can't render a judgment (so to speak).
Also, what is the standing of the Oslo Accords under international law? Does the fact that the PLO accepted the division of the territories in to Areas designated A, B, and C matter? Or have the accords effectively expired because they were mean to be transitory?
Matthew, Thanks for your thoughtful response. The argument you outline is a major part of the defense Israel makes for the settlements -- it's called "the missing reversioner." But it isn't accepted outside of Israel, since in the view of most international legal experts the limits on what an occupier can do apply even if the legal claim of the previous occupier of the territory in question is not generally recognized, Jordan's was not.
The Oslo Accords set out a transition period during which further agreements would be reached (with the A,B, and C divisions being superseded by something else). The time has expired, but the accords did not set out what would happen in that case. Both sides have on occasion said that they are therefore not bound by Oslo, yet have condemned the other for violations of it. This would indicate some level of understanding that Oslo is still at least a point of reference, and de facto observation of most of it (except when it's not convenient).
Thanks, Alan. Re Oslo, then its status seems to be ... ambiguous. (I like really like the term, missing reversioner; a new one on me!)
This is not an issue that can be resolved by definitions. When people from Europe spread out to take over the rest of the world, they interacted with the indigenous populations in a variety of ways. In Mexico and Central America, they settled and intermarried. In India, they carried out administrative functions for fixed periods and then retired back in England. In the United States and Argentina, they simply exterminated the indigenous peoples.
South Africa and Palestine represented yet another model, where the indigenous population was too large (and too needed) to exterminate, so the settlers took the land and subordinated, isolated and refused social equality with the indigenous population. I suspect that HRW and others have picked up the Apartheid sobriquet because of the similarity of the South African Bantustans and the remaining islands of the Palestinian population.
Clark, my friend, this began when HRW defined Israel as apartheid. So avoiding definitions is not an option. The A-word carries great weight.
And yet, the Jews, not the Arabs are the population that is indigenous to the area. Jews have lived on the land continuously, in greater or lesser numbers, for 4000 years. Words have meanings and "definitions." Issues may not be resolved by definitions, but they can certainly be obfuscated by the misuse of defined terms.
I have a few issues with this otherwise balanced opinion piece.
" a legitimate comparison to apartheid by allowing its own civilian population to settle in occupied territory, in violation of the Geneva Convention. "
I am not aware of any law or clause in the G.C. that requires the occupying power to prevent individuals from choosing to build homes on unowned, disputed land.
"The first of the six paragraphs in Article 49 is by far the most important, in that it prohibits the forcible transfer or deportation from occupied territory of protected persons.
There is doubtless no need to give an account here of the painful recollections called forth by the "deportations" of the Second World War, for they are still present in everyone's memory."
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/COM/380-600056?OpenDocument
There is no "transfer", and no "forcible" involved in Jews choosing to build homes anywhere in Judea and Samaria.
"This has established two classes of residents, one with full citizenship rights and one with none."
Not exactly. As was pointed out, over 90% of the Palestinian Arab population living in areas A and B are citizens of the Palestinian Authority.
"It has also led to the building of a separate infrastructure, of roads and utilities, for the benefit of one group only."
Again, there is no legal impediment to the P.A. building roads, towns (e.g. Rawabi), digging wells in Areas A and B which are entirely under P.A. civil control, or in Gaza, under Hamas.
"It is also enforced segregation and inequality."
I am not clear on how that conclusion is reached in view of the autonomy of the P.A. and Hamas.
"those on the right who denounce any criticism of Israel as antisemitism."
There is an internationally accepted IHRA definition of antisemitism which specifically excludes criticism of Israeli policies from such denigration.
Falsely accusing Israel of "apartheid" however', like accusing Israel of being a "Nazi state", are delegitimizing terms meant to demonize the country and its people, and to prepare the groundwork for acceptance of calls for its dissolution. When directed at the only Jewish state on earth (and no other state), that is clearly "antisemitism" by any definition.
I understand that this reply should be directed to Bill, not Bob. In any event, I understand Geneva to forbid the transfer of population, voluntary or not, into occupied territory. The word "forcible" does not appear. This is in fact the generally accepted reading. As for the P.A.: it is not a sovereign government and the Arabs living in the West Bank, whether Area A, B. or C, are definitely in an inferior status. I would agree that a double standard applied to Israel is a marker of antisemitism, but criticism of Israeli occupation is not ipso facto a double standard.
Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: "Article 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive."
It is very clear. Now lawyers can interpret as they are wont to do, and judges (if there were any competent to judge this issue) could render a legally binding verdict. But "transfer" does mean "transfer", and not a voluntary decision by one or another individual to build a home.
I am not clear on how, specifically, Arabs under the P.A. in Areas A and B are "inferior"; and "inferior" to what, exactly?
And once again, criticism of any policy of any country is perfectly legitimate. Demonization and delegitimization of any country is not. And when that delegitimization is applied to the singular Jewish state on earth, the term"antisemitism" applies.
The operative clause is at the end of Article 49: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." As for Arabs living under the PA: the powers of the PA are circumscribed in all kinds of ways, access to resources like water is limited, roads are closed, travel is tightly restricted, roadblocks (for Arabs) are everywhere. Compared to the Jewish settlers who travel freely into Israel and have full legal rights in a fully independent country, this is clearly an inferior status.
1) There is no requirement that the "occupying country" PREVENT anyone from choosing to build on unowned, disputed land. There is no question of any Israeli citizen being "deported" or "transferred" anywhere. So no law, including the G.C., is being violated. So there is no "legitimate comparison to apartheid".
2) "This has established two classes of residents, one with full citizenship rights and one with none."
We apparently agree that "none" is incorrect. You suggest that the P.A. citizenship has reduced rights.
3) "It has also led to the building of a separate infrastructure, of roads and utilities, for the benefit of one group only." It seems we also agree that it is NOT "only one group that benefits". Just that the citizens of the P.A. benefit less.
4) And the "less" that you suggest the Palestinians suffer is " roads are closed, travel is tightly restricted, roadblocks (for Arabs) are everywhere." But is that not defensive measures as a direct result of the continuous attempts at terror attacks and the murder of thousands of Israelis? How could anyone suggest that that in any way approaches the definition of "apartheid"?
5) Finally, while apartheid was a policy of segregation that the white South Africa government enforced against its black citizens, simply on the basis of race, the only reason that Israelis are in Judea and Samaria is because the Arabs attacked them in 1967, seeking to exterminate the Jewish population of Israel. There is no comparison between the two situations.
1. 4 Geneva 49 is generally interpreted to cover not allowing your own citizens to move into territory you have occupied. You can have your own interpretation if you wish, but you won't convince most of the international legal community.
2. The P.A. residents have no Israeli citizenship rights. Their rights as citizens of the P.A. are clearly of much less benefit than the rights enjoyed by the Jewish settlers. More than "none" perhaps, but still quite unequal.
3. For much of the infrastructure, it is only the Jewish settlers who benefit. The Palestinians have had some benefit, especially in earlier years, but again it is a situation of institutionalized inequality.
4. If the settlements were not there, there would be no need for defensive measures. I condemn Palestinian violence, but the end result is still a heavily-guarded separation.
5. I consider the 1967 war to be a defensive war for Israel, but its history is more complicated than you suggest and it did not necessarily involve allowing settlement in territory occupied.
1) I quote the law as written. It very clearly says what it says. The "international legal community" will interpret it as it will, especially in the absence of any legally binding verdict by any competent court; and it will NOT be in favor of the Jewish state. The same can be said of the many "laws" that the "international community interprets" to condemn Israel repeatedly, and in my mind unjustly. In fact, your entire article is arguing against the HRW, and the international community's "interpretation" of the delegitimizing term "apartheid". It comes down to "This is OUR belief; don't confuse us with the facts!" (BTW, the fact that the law, as written, is problematic for "the international community" is that they had to go back in 1998, and change the wording, in an effort to make it fit their anti-Israel narrative.)
2) "The P.A. residents have no Israeli citizenship rights. ". And that is EXACTLY why the label of "apartheid" cannot be applied. Jordanian and Lebanese citizens also have no Israeli citizenship rights. Their rights are also unequal with those of(even the Arab) citizens of Israel. Your argument seems to be that unless a fully independent "Palestine" comes into existence, Israel is guilty, or can be "interpreted" to be guilty of apartheid.
3) I don't know what the argument here is. Israel provides its citizens with "infrastructure". The P.A. is responsible for providing infrastructure to its citizens. It chooses not to (and to steal the billions of dollars donated). It is the same argument with COVID vaccines. Are you suggesting that the resulting "inequality" approaches the definition of "apartheid"?
4) The settlements are there as a result of Israeli administration of the area (and legally so, as I have argued.) Israel administers the area as a result of its successful self-defence in 1967. Following your argument, there would have been no war in 1967, if Israel had simply not been there. Funny. That is what the Arabs have been saying since the 1920 riots.
We may have to leave it at that, and agree to disagree.