From Occupation to Apartheid: How Israel Institutionalizes Human Rights Violations

From Occupation to Apartheid: How Israel Institutionalizes Human Rights Violations

Sidra Sadozai (Resident Editor Daily Peak Point)

The term “occupation,” which has its roots in international law and refers to Israel’s control over Palestinian territories it captured in 1967, has been used to frame the Palestine issue for decades. However, international human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and even the United Nations Special Rapporteurs have taken things a step further in recent years. They contend that Israel operates an apartheid system, which is illegal under international law, in addition to being an occupying power.

The recognition that Israel’s violations are systemic, entrenched, and purposefully intended to uphold Jewish supremacy over Palestinians in all areas under its control is reflected in this change in language, which goes beyond semantics.
Defining Apartheid Beyond Occupation

According to the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), apartheid is defined as an inhuman act carried out with the intention of establishing and upholding racial dominance and systematic oppression.

According to the historic 2022 report by Amnesty International, Israel enforces this kind of system “wherever it has control over Palestinians’ rights.” Similarly, Israel’s policies “amount to crimes of apartheid and persecution,” according to Human Rights Watch’s 2021 report “A Threshold Crossed.”
The occupation has spread into a permanent system of dominance, depriving Palestinians of equal rights and self-determination, according to multiple Special Rapporteurs, including Michael Lynk and Francesca Albanese, even within the UN.

The Oppression Machine

The accusation of apartheid is based on the totality of Israel’s actions in several areas:

Palestinian People and Land Disintegration

There are distinct legal, geographical, and political classifications for Palestinians: Israeli citizens, East Jerusalem residents, West Bank residents under military control, and refugees who are not allowed to return.
This division solidifies Israeli domination and hinders mass political mobilization.

Dual Legal Systems

Israeli civil law governs Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank, who are prohibited by international law, while Israeli military law governs Palestinians.

The end effect is a two-tiered legal system in which settlers have complete legal protections while Palestinians are subject to collective punishment, military tribunals, and arbitrary detention.

Expansion of Settlement and Land Confiscation

Today, the West Bank and East Jerusalem are home to more than 700,000 Israeli settlers. The Israeli army guards their settlements, which are connected by a system of bypass roads, while Palestinians are subject to movement restrictions, land seizures, and home demolitions.
Limitations on Movement

The blockade of Gaza, the infamous separation wall, and hundreds of checkpoints constitute a policy of confinement.

Two million Palestinians reside in what has been dubbed the “largest open-air prison in the world” in Gaza, where they have been under siege since 2007.

Israel’s Discriminatory Laws

About 20% of Israelis are Palestinian, and they experience institutional discrimination that is enshrined in laws like the Nation-State Law of 2018, which states that only Jews have the right to self-determination.

These components work together to create a system of racial dominance that goes far beyond occupation.
The Global Consensus Changes

Western governments vehemently opposed the term “apartheid” for many years, dismissing it as political rhetoric rather than a fact of law. The results of reputable, well-known human rights organizations, however, have altered the conversation.

Israel’s treatment of Palestinians “crosses the threshold” into apartheid, according to Human Rights Watch.

Israel’s system, according to Amnesty International, is “cruel” and “pervasive,” affecting Palestinians in Israel, the occupied territories, and even refugees overseas.

These evaluations have been confirmed by UN experts, and reports detailing systematic oppression similar to that of the former South African regime have been sent to the Human Rights Council.
The most reputable rights monitors in the world have come to this conclusion, so activists are no longer the only ones using it.

Western Silence and Israel’s Reaction

Not surprisingly, Israel has categorically denied these reports, calling them politically motivated and antisemitic. It argues that its security concerns justify restrictions on Palestinians and that apartheid is an inaccurate comparison.

Yet, the refusal to engage with substantive allegations speaks volumes. Israel and its allies criticize the messengers’ legitimacy rather than the evidence.
Fearing political repercussions, Western nations, especially the US and EU, have been reluctant to use the term “apartheid.” They still use the concept of “occupation” to justify Israel’s abuses, implying that it is a transient state that can be ended through dialogue. However, the fiction of temporariness is no longer credible in the face of 56 years of occupation, steadily growing settlements, and overt annexation efforts.

Implications for International Law

The ramifications are severe if Israel’s actions qualify as apartheid:

Legal Responsibilities: States are required to take action against apartheid because it is a crime against humanity. Governments are prohibited by international law from recognizing or supporting an apartheid regime.
International Criminal Court (ICC): After the Palestinian Authority ratified the Rome Statute, the ICC gained jurisdiction over Palestine and was able to look into and bring charges against those who committed apartheid-era crimes.

Boycotts and Sanctions: Civil society movements advocate for boycotts, divestments, and sanctions (BDS) to hold Israel responsible, much as international pressure helped end apartheid in South Africa.

The Significance of This

Calling Israel’s system apartheid reframes the conflict and is not merely a semantic choice. It shifts the focus from contested borders to basic human rights. It emphasizes that the Palestinian people are subject to a permanent system of dominance rather than just a brief occupation.
The world community cannot claim ignorance. The evidence is overwhelming, and the reports are unambiguous. More abuses are only made possible by continuing to view the matter as a political disagreement rather than a human rights emergency.

Conclusion: Dispelling the Silence

The transition from occupation to apartheid illustrates both Israel’s consolidation of power and the international community’s inability to hold it responsible. Palestinians are still ensnared in a system that aims to deprive them of dignity, destroy their identity, and split up their communities.
We cannot overlook the voices of the United Nations, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty. Apartheid must be just as unacceptable in Palestine as it was in South Africa. Being silent is complicity. The international community has a clear moral and legal obligation to end apartheid, protect human rights, and bring justice to the Palestinian people.

Until then, the dream of Palestinian freedom will remain postponed and the promise of international law will remain void.