MAPPING APARTHEID IN HEBRON - RIMAN NAMOORA HUMAN RIGHTS. BACHELOR THESIS. 15 CREDITS. SPRING SEMESTER 2021 SUPERVISOR: LENA KARLBRINK - DIVA PORTAL
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
MAPPING APARTHEID IN HEBRON
Riman Namoora
Human Rights.
Bachelor Thesis.
15 credits.
Spring semester 2021
Supervisor: Lena Karlbrink. ﻋﻠﻰ ھﺬه اﻷرض ﺳﯿﺪة: ْﯾﺴﺘﺤﻖ اﻟﺤﯿﺎة
ّ ُ◌ﻋﻠﻰ ھﺬه اﻷرض ﻣﺎ
ﺻﺎرت. ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﺴﻤﻰ ﻓﻠﺴﻄﯿﻦ. أم اﻟﺒﺪاﯾﺎت أم اﻟﻨﮭﺎﯾﺎت،ْ◌اﻷرض
أﺳﺘﺤﻖ اﻟﺤﯿﺎة، ﻷﻧﻚ ﺳﯿﺪﺗﻲ، أﺳﺘﺤﻖ: ﺳﯿﺪﺗﻲ.ﺗﺴﻤﻰ ﻓﻠﺴﻄﯿﻦ
. ﻋﻠﻰ ھﺬه اﻷرض- ﻣﺤﻤﻮد دروﯾﺶ
�
We have on this earth what makes life worth living, on this earth, the Lady of Earth, the mother
of all beginnings, the mother of all endings. She was called Palestine. She came to be called
Palestine. O lady, because you are my lady, I am worthy of life.
Mahmoud Darwish – On this Earth
ABSTRACT
The interest in the Palestinias human rights violation by Israeli Occupation
authorities has been increased and is taking a significant role in the world
1today. Especially after OPT gained its right to self-determination and
consequently became a part of the international community and international
Laws and most importantly, the Rome statute of the International Criminal
Court. The ICC has started an investigation of crimes and violations committed
under the Rome Statute. However, there have not been any decisions or
prosecution filed yet. However, different reports have discussed the crimes
committed. This paper is examining the crime of apartheid and analysing it
under the Rome statute through a singel case study of the city Hebron.
2LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ACRI: Association of Civil Rights in Israel.
ECOSOC: The United Nations Economic and Social Council.
HRW: Human Rights Watch.
ICC: International Criminal Court.
ICJ: International Court of Justice.
ICCPR: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
ICERD: International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination.
ICESCR: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
ICSPCA: International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of
Apartheid.
IDF: Israeli Defence Force.
IHL: International Humanitarian Law
IHRL: International Human Rights Law
ILC: International Law Commission
IOF: Israeli Occupation Force
JNF: Jewish National Fund
NGO: Non Governmental Organization
OHCHR: United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
PLO: Palestinisn Liberation Organization
UDHR: Universal Declaration of Human Rights
3UN: United Nation
UNCHADA: UN Coordinator for Humanitarian Aid and Development Activities
UNHRC: United Human Rights Commission
UNICEF: The United Nations Children's Fund
UNTC: United Nation Treaty Collection
4TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 7
1.1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HEBRON 8
1.1.1. The Ibrahimi Mosque Massacre (1994) Fel! Bokmärket är inte definierat.
1.1.2. The Oslo Accords (1993–2000). Fel! Bokmärket är inte definierat.
1.1.3. The Protocol Concerning the Redeployment in Hebron (1997). 10
1.1.4. The Second Intifada (2000-2005) Fel! Bokmärket är inte definierat.
1.2. RESEARCH PROBLEM 12
1.3. AIM AND RESEARCH QUESTION 13
1.4. APARTHEID AND ITS RELEVECE TO HUMAN RIGHTS 14
1.5. THESIS OUTLINE 15
2. METHODOLOGY 15
2.1. SINGLE CASE STUDY 15
2.2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION METHODS 16
2.3. METHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS 17
2.4. LIMITATIONS 18
3. PREVIOUS RESEARCH 18
4. THE CRIME OF APARTHEID 21
4.1. APARTHEID IN THE ROME STATUTE 23
4.2. THE INCLUSION OF APARTHEID IN THE ROME STATUTE 23
4.3. KEY TERMS OF THE DEFINITION 24
4.3.1. AN INSTITUTIONALISED REGIME 24
4.3.2. DOMINATION 25
4.3.3. SYSTEMATIC OPPRESSION Fel! Bokmärket är inte definierat.
54.3.4. INHUMANE ACTS Fel! Bokmärket är inte definierat.
5. LEGAL CONSEQUANCES ON THE CRIME OF APARTHEID 27
5.1. INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY 27
5.2. ICC JURISDICTION 28
5.3. THE ICC INVESTIGATION ON PALESTINE 29
6. ANALYSIS : 29
6.1. INTENT TO MAINTAIN DOMINATION 30
6.1.1. DEMOGRAPHICS 30
6.1.2. CONTROL OVER LAND 32
6.2. SYSTEMATIC OPPRESSION 34
6.2.1. RESTRICTIONS ON MOBILITY 34
6.2.2. VIOLENCE 36
6.2.3. RESOURCES AND SERVICES 37
6.2.4. PROPERTY AND HOUSING 38
6.3. INHUMANE ACTS 39
6.3.1. THE PERMIT REGIME 39
6.3.2. DENIAL OF FREEDOM OF RESIDENCE 41
6.3.3. DENIAL OF FAMILY REUNIFICATION 43
7. CONCLUSION 44
8. FURTHER RESEARCH Fel! Bokmärket är inte definierat.
9. BIBLIOGRAPHY Fel! Bokmärket är inte definierat.
61. INTRODUCTION
“Apartheid,” a powerful yet extremely delicate term, which can be traced back to a long
history full of discrimination, segregation, oppression, racism, brutality, and several other human
rights violations that took place in South Africa between the period of 1948 up until the early
1990s. Therefore, Apartheid has been prohibited and described as a “crime against humanity”
according to the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of
Apartheid which came as a result of the South African situation. Year 1995, the South African
Regime began to collapse, which resulted in the suspension of the UN treaty-monitoring body for
the Apartheid Convention, namely the ‘group of three, in addition to the dissolution of the special
committee and the UN center against Apartheid. (ECOSOC, 1995, para. 20 & para. 12). “On these
grounds, the relevance of the international legal prohibition on apartheid beyond South African
history is disputed from certain quarters”. (Dugard and Reynold, 2013, p. 884).
According to the group of three, while recognizing that Apartheid Convention applied to any
country that has “similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as
practiced in southern Africa” (Apartheid Convention, 1976, art. 2). “There is no claim by any State
party that apartheid, as defined by the Convention, exists anywhere else than in southern Africa”
(ECOSOC, 1995, para. 17). However, since the outbreak of the second Palestinian Intifada (Al-
Aqsa Intifada) in 2000, Apartheid fingers started pointing at Israel. In the beginning, the debate
around “Israel Apartheid” was limited to comparatively small and conservative circles in the
Palestinian society. After all, the accusation has progressed beyond these limits as it became
discussed more openly by human rights activists, intellectuals, authors, Palestinian, Arab, and even
international NGOs. Numerous comparisons have also been made between the Southern Africa
apartheid regime and the Israeli regime in Palestine.
2021 have so far been an exceptional year, highlighted with several prominent events,
starting with the Israeli Information Centre for Human rights in the Occupied Territories, B’tselem,
which published a report in January titled “A regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River
to the Mediterranean Sea: This is apartheid.” (B’tselem, 2021). The report analyzes how the Israeli
regime operates to achieve its goals in the entire area under its jurisdiction. It also introduces the
main principles which guide the regime and demonstrates how they are implemented, and
7eventually points to Israel as an apartheid state. In March, the International Criminal Court (ICC)
prosecutor Fatou Bensouda initiated an investigation of all crimes under the court jurisdiction,
including Apartheid. And the most recent is the Human Rights Watch (HRW) report which is
based on years of research and fieldwork and analyzed under the legal standards for the crimes of
Apartheid and persecution (ICC, 2021 A). HRW ultimately concludes that “the Israeli government
has demonstrated an intent to maintain the domination of Jewish Israelis over Palestinians across
Israel and the OPT. In the OPT, including East Jerusalem, that intent has been coupled with the
systematic oppression of Palestinians and inhumane acts committed against them. When these
three elements occur together, they amount to the crime of apartheid” (HRW, 2021, p. 9).
1.1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HEBRON
Hebron, in Arabic Al-Khalil ()اﻟﺨﻠﯿﻞ, is an ancient West Bank city and its largest, with a total
population of 200,000 residents, the vast majority of which are Palestinian Arabs. The Old City is
home to around 40,000 of them. Around 400-900 Israeli settlers live in the city center; an additional
8,000 Israelis live on the outskirts of Hebron in the Kiryat Arba settlement. (Mujahed, n.d). Hebron
is also a religiously significant city for all three Abrahamic faiths (Islam, Christianity, and
Judaism) since it is believed that the biblical prophet Abraham and his wife Sarah are buried
alongside Isaac, Rebecca, Jacob, and Leah in the location of the Ibrahimi Mosque (Tomb of the
Patriarchs). Thus, the Old City of Hebron developed around this significant landmark.
This chapter focuses on the historic Old City of Hebron as it is the heart of Hebron’s
manufacturing and commercial hub, consisted of the Wholesale Market, the Vegetable Market,
thousands of shops, in addition to the Casbah and, most importantly, the Ibrahimi Mosque (Cave
of the Patriarchs), and how it has been seized by IOF to become a “ghost town” with Israeli Jewish
domination and Israeli military rule. (ACRI & B’tselem, 2007).
Jordan had jurisdiction over the West Bank, including Hebron, between the Nakba (1948)
and the Naksa (1967). When the 1967 war broke out, Israel conquered, among other places, the
West Bank and the Gaza Strip, where it promptly formed a military rule over the Hebron area.
Afterward, the Israeli political movement Gush Emunim and other zionist organizations launched
8a campaign to recapture all of the biblical territory of Israel, known as Eretz Israel. (HRW, 2001,
p. 11). As a result, in April 1968, a group of Jewish Israelis led by Rabbi Moshe Levinger claimed
to be tourists and booked a hotel in central Hebron; after two days, they refused to leave the city,
showing their intention of a permanent stay. The settlers were supported by some Israeli political
leaders and eventually the Israeli authorities, who transferred them to the Kiryat Arba settlement,
which was newly established on the outskirts of Hebron’s Old City, on Palestinian property
initially confiscated for military purposes. By 1971, around fifty families of settlers had moved
into the settlement. (ACRI & B’tselem, 2007, p.10).
Since then, Jewish settlers from Kiryat Arba have begun to establish settlements in Hebron’s
Old City. By the early 1980s, Four such Israeli settlements were established and even authorized
by the Israeli government in the Old City of Hebron.
1.1.1. The Ibrahimi Mosque Massacre (1994)
The massacre took place on February 25, 1994, when Dr. Baruch Goldstein, an American-
born Jewish settler and supporter of the ultra-right Kach organization, opened fire at Muslim
worshipers at the Ibrahimi Mosque while praying during the holy month of Ramadan, killing 29
of them and injured more than 100 others. (NRC, 2013, p.13).
The United Nations Security Council has adopted Resolution number 904, in which “strongly
condemns the massacre in Hebron and its aftermath” and called for “measures to be taken to
guarantee the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilians throughout the occupied territory,
including, inter alia, a temporary international or foreign presence” (UNSCR, 1994, para 1 & para
4). accordingly, in May 1994, a temporary international presence was formed in Hebron, supported
by Italy, Norway, and Denmark. (NRC, 2013, p.13).
Despite condemning Goldstein’s conduct, Israel has put severe restrictions on Palestinian
mobility in Hebron as part of an obvious separation strategy between Israeli settlers and Hebron’s
Palestinian residents. The Israeli military has ordered the closure of hundreds of Palestinian shops.
Ever since, The Ibrahimi Mosque has been divided into two sections, with separate entrances for
Jews and Muslims. Muslim worshippers, until this day, have to pass through a set of metal
9detectors and physical barriers along with withstanding long waits in order to enter the mosque.
(NRC, 2013, p.14).
1.1.2. The Oslo Accords (1993–2000).
In September 1993, the Israeli occupation government and the Palestine Liberation
Organization (PLO) signed the Oslo Accords in Washington D.C., which aimed to establish a
Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority for the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza
Strip for a transitional period of no more than five years, with the goal of eventually reaching a
permanent agreement between the parties which has not been achieved yet.
On September 28, 1995, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser
Arafat signed the Oslo II Agreement, which granted Palestinians a limited measure of self-
government and autonomy in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip through the Palestinian Authority
(PA). Accordingly, the west bank into three zones: Area A, B & C. Area A Under full Palestinian
military and civilian control by the PA. While Area B Under Palestinian civilian control and Israeli
military control, and Area C Under Israeli military control, with all powers concerning land held
by the Israeli Civil Administration, leaving Hebron under Israeli military rule. (NRC, 2013, p.14-
15).
1.1.3. The Protocol Concerning the Redeployment in Hebron (1997).
On 17 January 1997, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu signed the Protocol Concerning the Redeployment in Hebron, also known as Hebron
protocol.
As a result of this agreement, the city of Hebron was divided into two areas: H1 and H2. The
Protocol also called for the creation of a ‘special security arrangement’ to apply to areas under
Israeli military control, in addition to the formation of a Joint Military Unit (JMU) to address
events involving Palestinians in H2. Area H1 is Under complete Palestinian control and makes
around 80 percent of the city, while Area H2 Under complete Israeli military control. Palestinians
civilians are under Palestinian control, while Israeli settlers are under Israeli civil control. The area
constitutes 20 percent of the municipal boundary of Hebron. (Hebron protocol, 1997)
10The protocol included different articles regulating the situation in the city, but the most
important ones are article 9, stating that:
“Both sides reiterate their commitment to the unity of the City of Hebron and their
understanding that the division of security responsibility will not divide the city.
In this context, and without derogating from the security powers and
responsibilities of either side, both sides share the mutual goal that movement of
people, goods and vehicles within and in and out of the city will be smooth and
normal, without obstacles or barriers” (Hebron protocol, 1997, art. 9).
similarly to article 7 which states that:
“Both sides are committed to taking all steps and measures necessary for the
normalization of life in Hebron, including:
1. The wholesale market - Hasbahe - will be opened as a retail market in
which goods will be sold directly to consumers from within the existing shops.
2. The movement of vehicles on the Shuhada Road will be gradually
returned, within 4 months, to the same situation which existed prior to February
1994.” (Hebron protocol, 1997, art. 7).
However, Palestinians in Area H2 are still facing heavily guarded checkpoints, roadblocks,
and military barriers on a daily basis.
1.1.4. The Second Intifada (2000-2005)
The second Intifada began on September 29, 2000, when the terms of the Hebron Protocol
dwindled. Consequently, the violence increased with daily aggressions, and additional severe
limitations were imposed on Palestinian inhabitants’ freedom of movement. Hebron was an
epicenter of violence and a long series of daily killings which mainly aimed to further cement the
separation between Palestinians and Israeli settlers in Hebron and create so-called “protective
spaces” due to security necessary to safeguard “IDF” soldiers and the lives of the Jews Israeli
settlers in Hebron. (NRC, 2013, p.16-17).
11This period - along with all other events- has resulted in Palestinians leaving H2. According
to B’Tselem and ACRI (2007), that “at least 1,014 Palestinian housing units had been vacated by
their occupants. This number represents 41.9 percent of the housing units in the relevant area”.
(ACRI & B’tselem, 2007, p.14). Regarding Palestinian businesses, 1,829 were not open for
business. This number represents 76.6 percent of all the business establishments in the area, and
this is due to the Israeli military orders, restrictions, and the Intifada.
Today, while Area H1 is considered to be one of the West Banks’ best commercial and
industrial centers, the Old City of H2 area is experiencing the lasting economic and social
consequences of the severely discriminatory policies implemented. As a result, many Palestinians
were forced to leave their homes, shops, and own properties in the Old City when Israeli settlers
are Maximising their population and taking over the area.
1.2. RESEARCH PROBLEM
As demonstrated, the scholarly task of examining Israeli policies in the OPT, including East
Jerusalem and Gaza Strip in the context of apartheid, has been, to a certain degree, exhausted.
However, most of the legal researches conducted around the topic, study the provisions of the
apartheid convention, the ICERD, and other IHLs through analyzing the definition of apartheid
for the aim of identifying the State Responsibility that falls upon Israeli policies and practices that
violates human rights and the prohibition of apartheid.
Nonetheless, there has not been enough examination of the apartheid definition in the lens of
the Rome Statute of the ICC; authors have ignored, rather avoided studying the solid pieces of
evidence that would, by fair means, link specific individuals to criminal offenses that arise under
the rubric of apartheid prohibition. This in specific would, according to HSRC, require other than
explaining that Israel's policies of administering the OPT represent apartheid. There is a
fundamental distinction between determining that a code of international law has been violated
and establishing that an international crime has been committed, and there are consequences
resting upon it.
12Case studies investigating the analogy were conducted widely by several authors, especially
that the Israeli occupation employs different government structures consisting of different
governing agencies, with more or less distinct policies and practices applied within every part of
Palestine. To illustrate, the West Bank is under Israeli military rule, the Gaza strip has been seized
since 2007 along with an excessive occupation system, East Jerusalem is a contested territory taken
in violation of international law, and finally, in the 1948 territories, a civilian constitutional regime
is present. All of which have been examined differently under the definition of apartheid. However,
looking closer into the West Bank, into the city of Hebron in specific. A city that has not been
given enough attention, considering the fact that it is the only city in the OPT (beside East
Jerusalem) that has internal settlements, where both the city inhabitants and the Israeli Jewish
settlers are living in the same area under Israeli control. Thus, the case of Hebron is a suitable
example in order to investigate whether the notion of apartheid is present within the Israeli system.
1.3. AIM AND RESEARCH QUESTION
Since South African Apartheid and the inclusion of apartheid crime in the Rome statute,
Apartheid has never been prosecuted in court. This could be a result of the lack of judicial
interpretations of the crime’s main elements, which in its turn discourages further investigations
and eventually results in the lack of court ruling. Thus, this paper is aiming to awake the interest
of the court by interpreting the definition of Apartheid and indicate the evidences needed to apply
the crime through scrutinizing its elements and finally apply those elements to determine whether
the crime is taking place.
However, this paper does not specifically aim to tie persons who may be liable. As it is the
prosecutor’s office and criminal court job, yet it has been elaborated upon in the coming chapters.
THE QUESTION:
How is Apartheid in the context of the Rome Statute applied to the city of Hebron?
131.4. APARTHEID AND ITS RELEVECE TO HUMAN RIGHTS
“Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings” (OHCHR).
All fundamental and basic human rights are outlined and protected in The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) since 1948. Together with the International Covenant for
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and its two protocols, and the International Covenant for
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), formulate the International Bill of Human
Rights, which in turn function to advance fundamental freedoms and uphold human rights for all
without distinctions of any kind such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political, other
opinions, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other
status. The Bill affects the policies and practices of governments, states, and non-state actors to
prioritize economic, social, and cultural rights in the development and application of policy and
law. (OHCHR, 1996).
Article 2 of the UDHR asserts that everyone can claim their human rights and freedoms with
no discrimination based on any kind. Freedom from Discrimination is enshrined in international
human rights law due to its incorporation in the ICCPR and the ICESCR. Also, it has been
expanded upon in other widely recognized international human rights conventions and treaties, but
most importantly, in this case, is article 3 of ICERD, as it prohibits the practice of apartheid as a
significantly heinous form of discrimination. Still, apartheid is not only limited to discrimination
-historically based on race- but it also constitutes serious violations of different fundamental
human rights. Therefore, the specific convention of apartheid and the Rome Statute have explicitly
expanded on the prohibition of apartheid through criminalizing specific apartheid policies and
elaborate on the concept of apartheid to include all “inhuman acts committed for the purpose of
establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group
of persons and systematically oppressing them” (ICSPCA, art 2). Both declarations put emphasis
on the systematic, institutionalized, and oppressive nature of the discrimination implemented along
with the intent of dominance that is entailed in the definition. This shows how the crime of
apartheid differs from other types of prohibited discrimination. Finally, it is worth noting that
apartheid prohibition has now acquired the status of customary international law and has been
14developed as a peremptory norm of international law that entails duties owed to the international
community. (ILC, 2019, p. 19).
1.5. THESIS OUTLINE
This introductory chapter has provided the reader with a brief background of the study,
including identifying the reason behind the study, its aim, and what it is looking for. The following
chapter is going to introduce the tools used for this study. Next, chapter 3 will follow with a short
literature review of previous studies conducted around the topic in order to identify the gap
intended to be filled. The Crime of Apartheid in the context of the Rome statute is going to be
interpreted in the fourth chapter as a way of providing a framework for the analysis to be
conducted. An additional chapter added will be explaining the legal consequences of the crime of
apartheid. Then comes the analysis; the data collected is analyzed in accordance with the Rome
statute definition of apartheid interpretation, namely, domination, systematic oppression, and
inhumane acts. And eventually, conclusion.
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1. SINGLE CASE STUDY
This paper has conducted a single case study of the city of Hebron by examining apartheid
in the context of Rome statute. Case study research does not have a specific definition. It has been
considered to be ambiguous, especially its methodological status, where “researchers have many
things in mind when they talk about case study research” (Gerring 2007, p. 17). Therefore they
always view the research design of the case study in “extreme circumspection”. However, a case
study in its closest definition of this study is the “work that focuses its attention on a single example
of a broader phenomenon” which is known as a “mere” case study. (Gerring, 2007, p. 6)
Thus, this paper focuses its attention on Hebron as a case study of the most observable
examples of apartheid in the OPT. It provides unique insight into understanding and exploring the
policies implemented in the city, but specifically the ‘Old City’ and the area surrounding it (which
15is defined as H2) due to its exceptionality. Indeed, this area is the most affected by the Israeli
regime and its apartheid practices since it contains internal settlers living along with the city’s
original inhabitants, in addition to the Israeli colonial domination and daily army presence, as it is
agreed on in Hebron protocol. Furthermore, its importance to the Palestinians, culturally,
economically, and historically. Accordingly, the Old City of Hebron presents a significant case
study to examine the implementations of various Israeli policies resulting in the crime apartheid.
Israeli apartheid policies - among other human rights violations, war crimes, and crimes against
humanity - are not limited to H2; they are also applied in H1, throughout the whole city, and the
rest of the occupied Palestinian land.
Another reason behind choosing this topic lies in the interest of exploring different policies
with different measures, ways of implementing, means, and mechanisms that are connected and
based on an institutionalized regime in order to reach a specific aim of maintaining domination
which eventually results in a crime against humanity. As such, a case study is the most effective
way to illustrate the systematic oppression of the Israeli Institutionalized regime designed and
implemented to control the maximum amount of land with the minimum number of Palestinians
on that land.
2.2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION
METHODS
To achieve the primary goals of this analysis, qualitative approaches, as well as a mixture of
primary and secondary data, were used. This segment also addressed the origins of the data
gathered as well as the techniques used to gather it.
2.2.1. Primary data
The primary materials are, according to Dr Pandey:
“data or information collected by the researcher directly from his own observation.
Facts which are directly collected by the researcher in the society through his direct
16hard working towards discovery of fact are called primary data. Searching of
factual information or philosophical information may fulfil from two sources as
direct and indirect source. Direct Source information is ‘Primary data’, and
‘indirect source or second hand information is secondary data.” (Pandey, n.d, p.7).
Therefore, laws are considered primary materials, this paper has used relevant international treaties
and conventions, but mainly the Rome Statute. Other conventions and treaties have been regarded
when seen fit. In addition to some customary law norms followed by judicial decisions, to help
understand the norms. The ILC Draft Code on Crimes has provided significant help into
understanding the laws. Domestic laws are also, to some extent, included. All of which was
obtained from its original sources, namely from law-making bodies, either international sources or
national ones, such as the UNTC. It is also worth mentioning that reliability and validity of the
primary data used were fulfilled.
2.2.2. Secondary data
Regarding the secondary materials, which is “Any such information in relation to which no
primary source is available, but information is available with other non authoritative sources”
(Pandey, n.d, p.7), have been collected through a desk review, which includes NGO reports, like
B’tselem and ACRI, International Human Rights Organizations reports, such as the HRW report,
and some other projects by national resource centers, like BADIL, some other Secondary data
sources have been obtained from works of literature regarding apartheid, and Israel occupation of
Palestine and the remaining data were from books, various articles, newsletters, newspapers,
websites, and other sources were considered on Hebron, apartheid, and Palestine. Most of these
literatures were found using different data bases like Google scholar, Malmö university online
Library, Z- Library, and others, in order to collect enough information about the situation in
Hebron and be able to apply it and examine it under apartheid definition elements of the Rome
statute.
2.3. METHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS
As indicated, this paper has followed a Qualitative strategy, using both types of materials.
Before starting with the Qualitative content analysis, it is important to point out that the qualitative
17method is simply non-numerical data. And there are different methodological approaches that
could be used to analyze the collected data, each of which serves a particular function and has its
own set of strengths and weaknesses. This paper is using the approach of the qualitative content
analysis method. This method is perhaps the most popular method of Qualitative data analysis,
which is known as the process of collecting and categorizing qualitative textual data in order to
define consistent patterns. (Warren, 2020). It is this method. It was used to examine the collected
textual data pertaining the Israeli policies implemented in Hebron, as well as the primary law data
collected, identifying and interpret them, categorize them into specific categories, and analyze
them afterward in accordance with the framework of the Rome statute definition of apartheid.
2.4. LIMITATIONS
This study has potential limitations, first is the access limitations. The idea of the thesis was
initially intended to conduct interviews of Hebron’s inhabitants, regarding their experiences and
considerations of the Israeli policies, including seizing their properties, whether homes or shops,
the restrictions imposed on their movements and freedoms, and human rights violations they
experience on a daily basis. However, due to the global pandemic and limited traveling
opportunities, the study has switched the focus solely to previous reports and projects based on
interviews, among others. The pandemic also has limited access to specific books from different
libraries that could have taken this study to a higher level.
Researcher bias is another potential limitation of this study due to the background and the
perspective of a pro-Palestinian, which can affect a study’s legitimacy. However, In order to avoid
this problem, the author has attempted to support the reports reviewed on international reports that
do not belong or relate to a specific group.
3. LITERATURE REVIEW
Originally, Apartheid -or literally apart-hood- is an Afrikaan word for ‘separateness’. It has
been defined and examined in various forms and contexts, controversially /particularly beyond the
South African one. In international law, apartheid is criminalized not only in the Apartheid
18convention but also in the International Convention of all Elimination of Racial Discrimination
(ICERD) and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court which in its turn defines
apartheid as “inhuman acts ... committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic
oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and
committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” (Rome Statute, 2002, art. 2 (h))
including persecution against any kind of group based on their political, racial, national, ethnic,
cultural, religious, gender or other grounds and deportation or forcible transfer of population.
(Greenstein, 2020, p.74 - 75). Also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Charter of
the United Nations, state different meanings and prohibitions on all types of segregation and
discrimination, without necessarily calling it apartheid.
According to Johan Dugard “the Apartheid Convention is intended to apply to situations
other than South Africa is confirmed by its endorsement in a wider context in instruments adopted
before and after the fall of apartheid.” (Dugard, 2008, p. 2). Therefore, for this purpose, the racial
aspect should be bypassed. While Greenstein argues that the Race phenomenon can be developed
beyond its conceptual and geographical limitations, just like apartheid. He referred to the ICERD
definition of ‘racial discrimination' as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based
on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying
or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and
fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.”
(ICERD, 1969, art. 1.1). He combined it with the Apartheid Convention to present another
definition of apartheid as “a set of policies and practices of legal discrimination, political
exclusion, and social marginalization, based on racial, national or ethnic origins.” (Greenstein,
2010, 2-3) that could be applied in all circumstances.
In order to examine whether Israeli policy can be considered apartheid, the South African
Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) gone through Israel’s practices on the occupied
territory of Palestine in the light of the apartheid convention, article 2 in specific, as it contains the
definition of Apartheid which cites various categories of ‘inhuman acts’ as comprising the ‘crimes
of apartheid’ that are implemented, such as the collective punishment policies that have serious
implications for life and health, that is a violation by Israel of article 2 (b) of the convention.
Dugard and Reynolds have, in addition, noted some violations as well as laws practised by Israel
19that affect the Palestinian population on a daily basis, Such laws include the 1950 Law of Return,
1951 State Property Law, and the 1952 Nationality Law. (Dugard & Reynold, 2013)
Another way of examining apartheid in the occupied Palestinian territory by the Israeli State
was to compare the two regimes; namely Israel and South Africa. Reviewing few articles from a
considerable amount of literature using the analogy, and starting with Peteet comparison where he
stated that “Israel and South Africa are settler-colonial states and societies once supported by
imperial Britain, constituted by immigrants, and animated by ideologies of separation and
exclusivism that resulted in indigenous displacement and dispossession”. (Peteet 2016, p.250).
Multiple similarities have been discussed, such as, freedom of movement and mobility limitations,
ethnic cleansing and segregation of the population, also the killing that has happened in South
Africa and its similarity to the one happening in occupied Palestinian territory nowadays, the
torture, inhumane treatment, detention, etc. (HSRC, 2009 p.177-183 & 212-215; Peteet 2016,
p.264-272; Bakan & Abu-Laban, 2010 p.343).
Leila Farsakh argued in her article “Independence, Cantons, or Bantustans: Whither the
Palestinian State?” the way the Oslo Accords developments did not take the Palestinians any step
closer to establishing a sovereign, viable state. Rather, they made the Occupied Territories more
similar to South Africa's apartheid-era Bantustans. However, it is worth noting that the South
African apartheid and the Israeli regime do not share the same common origins or history, even
though they converged at certain points in their respective histories. (Farsakh p. 245).
On the contrary, some other authors, such as Yaffa Zillbershots and Robbie Sabel have
refused the analogy. For Zillbershots, She challenges Dugard and Reynolds arguments in which
she claimed that they have failed in distinguishing between “the norms governing occupied and
sovereign territory” and also failed in addressing Israel policies. Concerning sovereignty and
Belligerent occupation, she defined apartheid, either in South Africa experience or beyond it to be
“characterized by the institutionalized racism of a government against the citizens and residents
under its sovereign regime” (Zillbershots, 2013 p.916). And therefore Israel can not be considered
as an apartheid state as long it claims to have no sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza and
accordingly, Palestinians living on these territories are no citizens of Israel, which makes Israeli
practices against those Palestinians; not apartheid. The same argument was applied to the
20differences in the laws applied to Israeli settlers and Palestinians, since Palestinians living in the
occupied territories are not citizens of the Israeli state and therefore the civil law is not applicable
to them. Sabel Along with Zillbershots and Benjamin Pogrund have all argued that Israel's actions
and policies against Palestinians are due to security matters and can not be considered Apartheid.
Sabel even argues that the accusation of Israel apartheid is not only false and baseless rather it is
an attempt to delegitimize the Jewish state and its right to exist. (Sabel, 2009 p. 11-13; Greenstein,
2010, p. 7; Zillbershots, 2013 p. 923).
The claims of Israel apartheid are based on multiple factors and numerous facts. The HSRC
report aligns with Dugard and Reynolds' work tested Israeli policies, laws and practices under
international laws. Greenstein has identified specific pillars of apartheid through explicitly
examining the similarities and differences between South Africa and Israel. As well did Peteet and
Balkan &Abu Laban in their articles. As for Farsakh, she examined Oslo accords and the way they
affected the establishment of the Palestinian civil government and laws, also the division of the
territory and the movement restrictions compared to the South African Bantustan. While the
literature defending the Israel regime of apartheid have used various materials and examples to
prove Israel’s innocence. In response to Dugard and Reynolds, Zilbershats stated that there is a
distinction between sovereign and occupied territory and that laws governing occupation -while
limiting political freedom- do not constitute apartheid. Sabel, in his turn, investigated various
facets of Israeli society, such as universal suffrage and veteran rights, to demonstrate the vibrancy
and richness of Israeli history, which features an Arab minority.
4. THE CRIME OF APARTHEID
Crime against humanity is an offense prohibited in international criminal law. Its first
appearance was in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal (Nürnberg Charter1945) at
the end of the Second World War. Different international conventions have elaborated on the
notion of crimes against humanity since then, such as the Statute of the International Criminal
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (1993), the Statute of the International Tribunal for Rwanda
(1994), and the Rome Statute of the ICC (1998).
21The Rome Statute contains the most comprehensive list of 11 particular criminal acts that
are considered to be crimes against humanity which have been defined as acts “committed as part
of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of
the attack” (Rome statute, 2002, art. 7) including, apartheid. It is necessary to point out that all
crimes under the Rome statute have the same weight, same gravity, and lead to the same
consequences. (HRW, 2021, p. 30).
In January 2015, the state of Palestine lodged a declaration under Article 12(3) of the Rome
Statute giving the ICC jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed in the OPT, including East
Jerusalem, since June 13, 2014. It has then acceded to the Rome Statute, which entered into force
on 1 April 2015. In the meanwhile, Israel has signed the Statute in 2002 but refused “any attempt
to interpret provisions thereof in a politically motivated manner against Israel and its citizens.”
(UNTC, Rome Statute). However, apartheid has been regarded as a peremptory rule in
international law, from which no exception is allowed and which applies to all States.
Apartheid is historically tied to South Africa’s situation Back in the 1940s. It has developed
over time to become a universally legal term outlawed as a crime against humanity, initially in the
Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against
Humanity (1968), then in the apartheid convention (1976). Both conventions have been ratified by
the state of Palestine but not Israel in 2015 and 2014, respectively. (UNTC, apartheid convention).
The aforementioned apartheid definition of the apartheid convention in article 2 included a number
of ‘inhumane acts’ making up the crime of apartheid, such as any measures taken to prevent a
specific group from participating in different aspects of like in the country and denying this group
basic human rights and freedoms. Also, part (d) of the second article criminalizes any other
measures designed to define the population by creating separate enclaves of groups and
expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof.
(Apartheid Convention, 1976, Art. 2).
224.1. APARTHEID IN THE ROME STATUTE
The Rome Statute (2002) has set out a list of inhumane acts which result in crimes against
humanity. These crimes can, for example, be “Deportation or forcible transfer of population,”
“Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of
international law,” “Persecution” or “Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally
causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.” (Rome Statute,
2002, art. 7).
Regarding the crime of apartheid, there are different elements required by the statute (Actus
Reus) to amount to apartheid. These elements are going to be examined and analyzed based on the
legal interpretation of Article 7(1)(j) of the Rome Statute. Including; an institutionalized regime,
systematic oppression, and domination which are committed with the intention of maintaining that
regime. (ICC, 2011, p.12). But before, the crime’s inclusion into the Rome Statute will be reviewed
in order to give a solid base for the upcoming discussion
4.2. THE INCLUSION OF APARTHEID IN THE ROME
STATUTE
In 1998, four years after the South Africa apartheid regime ended, apartheid was included in
the Rome statute of the ICC. Yet, surprisingly, it was a last-minute decision. The first draft of the
Rome Statute was mainly based on the Study of 1981 on Ways and Means of Insuring the
Implementation of International Instruments such as the International Convention on the
Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, Including the Establishment of the
International Jurisdiction Envisaged by the Convention, thus at a very early stage linking the crime
of apartheid with a prospective ICC, which was written in response to the Apartheid Convention.
It expressly demanded the establishment of an international criminal tribunal with jurisdiction over
the crimes outlined in the Convention (Article V). (Bassiouni and Schabas, 2016, p. 68). In 1992,
a Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind was proposed by the ILC,
23suggesting including the crime of apartheid along with Genocide, Systematic or mass violations
of human rights, and other crimes, under the jurisdiction of the ICC due to “their particular gravity,
heinous nature, and the considerable detriment they cause to mankind.” (ILC, 1992, p. 55).
The crime of apartheid was considered to be one of “the most serious crimes,” according to
the ILC. However, with the demise of the South African apartheid regime, the legal classification
of apartheid has faded into obscurity. The draft code of 1996 by the ILC did not contain an explicit
text relating to the crime of apartheid, including under a more general denomination. This draft,
like any other, was not acted upon until the Rome Diplomatic conference where including
apartheid officially as a crime against humanity was suggested. It had gone through a debate. Some
countries showed some skepticism, arguing that any widespread or systematic policy of apartheid
would eventually fall under the provision on persecution on racial grounds of Article 7(1)(h) of
the Rome Statute; therefore, a separate provision is unnecessary. While the majority supported the
inclusion. they argued that the crime was already implied in the Rome Statute; it may as well be
singled out and given its own clause. (ILC, 1992)
After all, the delegation decided, since apartheid had the same character and gravity as other
inhumane acts in the statute, it is qualified for its own provision and has been listed as a crime
against humanity.
4.3. KEY TERMS OF THE DEFINITION
4.3.1. AN INSTITUTIONALISED REGIME
This term is the one distinguishing between the definition of Apartheid in the Apartheid
Convention and the Rome Statute, as it first appeared in 1996 -after the establishment of apartheid
convention- in the International Law Commission (ILC), which incorporated “institutionalized
racial discrimination” as a crime against humanity. “it is, in fact, the crime of apartheid under a
more general denomination.” (ILC, 1996, p. 94). While the term “regime” is a bit controversial,
some authors argue that the term should be interpreted in a broader scope. For example,
Christopher Hall argues that since the Rome Statute does not limit the interpretation of the term to
obtain specific geographical areas or an institutionalized system by non-state groups. (Hall, 2008,
264 - 266) while others would argue for a narrow interpretation. According to Ariel Bultz, “when
24‘regime’ is expansively constructed, it becomes too ambiguous and unidentifiable.” (Bultz, 2009,
p. 229). He then claims that the non-state regime is not institutionalized in any way, and
accordingly, it falls under the purview of criminal responsibility under persecution rather than
Apartheid.
4.3.2. DOMINATION
The term is included in both the apartheid definition of the Rome Statute and Apartheid
Convention, but it has not been defined clearly in a legal manner. However, according to the
Oxford English dictionary, ‘domination’ is defined as an “exercise of power or influence over
someone or something, or the state of being so controlled.” HRW also indicated that “the crime of
apartheid can be carried out by authorities outside its own territory and with respect to non-
citizens.” (HRW, 2021, p. 39), as it is the case of Israel domination of OPT regardless of the fact
that this has been used as an opposing argument of rejecting the accusation of Israel apartheid.
Knowing that dominating these territories would not undermine the formal sovereignty of the OPT
or even detract from the historical truth of the occupation than the discovery of the apartheid crime
against humanity committed by Israelis. (HRW, 2021, p.40).
4.3.3. SYSTEMATIC OPPRESSION
The term is commonly included within most definitions of crimes against humanity.
However, just as domination and inhumane acts, it lacks a clear legal definition. In the Oxford
English Dictionary’ oppression’ is defined as “prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of
authority” with the intent of the oppressor to maintain domination. According to the HRW report,
referencing to article 2 of the Apartheid Convention suggests that oppression must reach a certain
severe level to be considered a crime. (HRW, 2021, p.40).
4.3.4. INHUMANE ACTS
The term “inhumane acts” does not have an explicit judicial definition in any of the
international treaties. However, it has been identified in the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber that:
25“inhumane acts are to be considered as serious violations of international
customary law and the basic rights pertaining to human beings, drawn from the
norms of international human rights law, which are of a similar nature and gravity
to the acts referred to in article 7(1) of the Statute.” (2008, para. 448).
Especially that all offenses listed as crimes against humanity in Article 7(1) of the Rome
Statute would plainly constitute an inhumane act. However, According to Article 7(2)(h) of the
Rome Statute and Article 2 of the Apartheid Convention, the expression itself, when carried out in
the context of ‘systematic oppression’ with the ‘intent to maintain domination,’ result in the crime
against humanity of apartheid. Over many years, Israeli authorities have committed a variety of
significant conventions violations under IHL, such as the Geneva Conventions and IHRL, such as
the ICCPR.
Many of which serious violations are qualifying under the category of inhumane acts,
including, extensive restrictions on movement, expropriation of the Palestinian land, depriving
palestinians of their property, means of income, and basic ways of life, and consequantly
encircleing the encirclement of highly inhabited areas where the majority of the palestinians
population reside; also, the imposition of restrictive regulations on building licenses, coerces
Palestinians to leave their houses which results in forcible relocation; and the restrictions on
fundamental civil, social and cultural rights, as well as numerous other destructive measures
adopted by Israeli forces against Palestinians, to the level of “inhuman acts” as a means of
implementing apartheid.
265. LEGAL CONSEQUANCES ON THE CRIME OF
APARTHEID
5.1. INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY
There is no way Crimes against humanity are held by one individual; rather, it is a collective
work of usually soldiers or armed persons. However, this does not absolve assessing individual
liability, considering the fact that all crimes are a result of a certain individual’s decision.
Individual criminal responsibility of the crimes against humanity in general, and the crime
of apartheid in this case, is regulated thoroughly in article 25 of the Rome Statute of the ICC. The
article follows a systemic approach to complicity, identifying four degrees of incorporation,
namely, commission, ordering, assistance, and contribution to a group crime. According to
Gerhard Werle, this distinction is important in determining the degree of individual criminal
liability, which can aid in the imposition of punishment. (Werle, 2014, p. 955-965). Part 3 (a) of
the article sets out three forms of commission; “an individual, jointly with another, or through
another person.” The part following presents the scope of individual criminal liability as it extends
beyond the ones who order, assist, promote, aid, and abet the offense. (Rome Statute, 2002, Art.
25. 3 (a)). According to the concept of command responsibility, military and civilian authorities
up to the highest commanders will be considered criminally liable for crimes perpetrated by their
subordinates whether they knew or could have learned that such crimes were being committed but
refused to take appropriate steps to avert the crimes or discipline those responsible.
Thus, the concept of an “apartheid state” is not entirely valid in terms of International Law;
rather, it is a crime committed by individuals. After years of research and fieldwork, HRW
discovered that apartheid crimes had been committed by Israeli officials and readers through
concrete policies and acts conducted in different areas, either under their jurisdictions or some
others claimed not to hold authority upon but still regulated by the Israeli military law.
Additionally, it has been discovered that the three aforementioned elements of the crime of
apartheid are incorporated in OPT by a ‘single Israeli government policy. This policy seeks to
preserve Israeli Jewish dominance over Arab Palestinians from the river to the sea, as well as
27accompanying this intent with ‘systematic oppression’ and ‘inhumane acts’ against Palestinians.
(HRW, 2021).
5.2. ICC JURISDICTION
Since the ICC holds the jurisdiction, not only over crimes against humanity, but war crimes,
genocide, crimes of aggression; any member country can refer to a situation within its own
territory, the UN security council could also refer to a situation of committed crimes, and the
prosecutor can even initiate an investigation on its own (prorio motu). So the court can open an
investigation based on preliminary examination of the alleged crimes of a “sufficient gravity”.
Thereafter, the prosecutor’s office sends investigators and other staff to conduct research and
gather information. (ICC, 2021A; ICC, n.d A; Felter, 2021)
In case of any arrest warrant or a summons to appear, the evidence must be provided by the
prosecutor and granted by the judiciary. Then A panel of pretrial judges eventually determines
whether a case should be tried. Defendants will seek independent lawyers to defend them, which
may be paid for by the court if needed. Convictions and sentences require the approval of at least
two of the three judges on a trial court, and there is a possibility of an appeal to the ICC’s appellate
bench. (ICC, 2021A; ICC, n.d A; Felter, 2021)
When it comes to the court’s relation to national courts, the ICC does not intend to replace
national criminal systems; rather, it complements them. The principle of complementarity gives
priority to national systems as states hold the prime responsibility for prosecuting the most serious
of crimes. However, ICC can investigate, prosecute and try individuals only when national courts
concerned have been found unable or unwilling to do so. Especially in case of prosecutions were
unnecessarily postponed or if they were designed to absolve people of their criminal liability. (ICC,
2021A; ICC, n.d A; Felter, 2021)
285.3. THE ICC INVESTIGATION ON PALESTINE
After the Palestinians state ratification of the statute and the referral of the Palestinian
situation to the ICC, the Prosecutor announced opening a preliminary examination which, in 2019,
concluded that it had met all the statutory criteria required to open an official investigation of all
alleged serious crimes committed on the Palestinian territory, as there is a fair cause to believe that
crimes have been or are being committed in OPT, and any of the possible lawsuits that might arise
from the circumstances will be admissible. Especially that the case is definitely serving the
interests of justice. (ICC, 2021 B; ICC, n.d B)
Nonetheless, considering the procedural and factual concerns surrounding this case, the
Prosecutor did not require specific judicial permission to go ahead with a formal investigation. She
did, however, seek from Pre-Trial Chamber I a jurisdictional decision on the extent of the ICC of
the Rome Statute's territorial authority in Palestine before proceeding with the formal
investigation. (ICC, 2021 B; ICC, n.d B)
The Chamber agreed on 5 February 2021 that the territorial jurisdiction of the court, in the
Situation in Palestine, applies to the territory occupied by Israel since 1967, Namely Gaza West
Bank and East Jerusalem. In other words, the court now could exercise its criminal jurisdiction in
the Situation in Palestine, which includes its ability to prosecute the crime of apartheid under
Article 7(1)(j) of the statute and other crimes against humanity as a string in the prosecutorial bow.
A Month Later, the Office of the Prosecutor announced opening an investigation into the situation
in Palestine. (ICC, 2021 B; ICC, n.d B).
6. ANALYSIS :
This section is analysing the elements of the apartheid defintion from chapter 4, catagorized
them and analysed them using the material chosen. This part consists of three main elements, First;
intent to maintain domination, including demographics, control over land which briefly examining;
the 1948 territories; the OPT of 1967 and Hebron. Second, systematic oppression, which is found
in restrictions on mobility, violence, resources and services and property and housing. The last,
29inhumane acts. They examine the permit regime, including, denial of freedom of movement and
denial of cultural and social rights, and the denial of freedom of residence and family reunification.
6.1. INTENT TO MAINTAIN DOMINATION
Since the 1984 Palestine Exodus or AL-Nakba ( )اﻟﻨﻜﺒﺔthat resulted in more than 700,000
Palestinian Arabs fleeing or being expelled from their own homes, their own country, the Israeli
government has adopted policies aiming to take over Palestine through increasing Jewish Israeli
influence over property, as well as maintaining the Jewish majority in Palestine as a whole.
Looking at the motivations behind the policy implemented and sustained by Israel, including legal
documents, planning records, officials’ statements, notes from the governments and Knesset
meetings, even social media and many more have shown the Jewish Israelis’ pursuit of dominance
over, mainly, demographics and land along with suppressing opposition of any form to those
policies. ( HRW, 2021, 44).
In this chapter, I will be analyzing some of the aforementioned motivations, which have gone
through a whole process of policy development to reach its current status, as a way of presenting
Israeli’ intent to maintain domination’ accompanied with ‘systematic oppression’ and ‘inhumane
acts’ resulting in the crime against humanity of apartheid, particularly in the city of Hebron.
6.1.1. DEMOGRAPHICS
One of the main motivations guiding the Israeli policy of particularly maximizing the Jewish
Israeli majority was, Demographics. Since day one, Israel’s main purpose of creation was to find
land for Jewish people. This is clearly declared in Israel’s proclamation of independence, where
they seek to solve the problem of Jews homelessness by “establishing in Eretz-Israel the Jewish
State” (proclamation of independence, 1948). Also, The Basic Law: Israel- the Nation-State of the
Jewish people (the Nation-State law), asserts in its first article 3 basic principles, essentially “The
State of Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish People, in which it realizes its natural, cultural,
religious and historical right to self-determination” which is unique to the Jews. (Knesset, 2018
A).
30You can also read
