Read on Twitter
The debate on Israeli responsibility on COVID vaccines in West Bank and Gaza is an opportunity to think of the competing and overlapping frameworks: occupation vs. apartheid.
[Thread]
[Thread]
2/ On vaccines, Israel's responsibility as an occupying power towards the occupied population is clear, based on the 4th Geneva convention. The Palestinian Authority, the Oslo agreements, or claims for Palestinian statehood do not change that.
3/ Israel could meet its obligation through the PA, but it is ultimately its obligation.
And this shows the strength of the occupation paradigm. On some things - like responsibility towards local population, or settlements - it's very clear.
And this shows the strength of the occupation paradigm. On some things - like responsibility towards local population, or settlements - it's very clear.
4/ In practice, international law on occupation has not stopped Israel from building settlements, effectively annexing the West Bank, and making a "temporary" occupation into a permanent feature. Hence, many argue we should see the situation as an unequal "one state".
5/ In many ways, after 53 years, it makes sense. In the West Bank 90% of the population were born under Israeli rule. Surely they should deserve the same rights as Jewish settlers living next to them (and often, on their stolen land).
6/ However, shifting to "one state", and demanding equality rather than self determination, means giving up the legal foundation of laws of occupation that makes it possible to call out settlements as illegal, or demand access to vaccines.
7/ Apartheid is also against international law, defined by the Rome Statute as "institutionalized 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".
8/ In Israel/Palestine we have a regime of systematic oppression and domination of one group over another, although not articulated in racial terms.
In practice, only against Apartheid South Africa was international law applied. And there are differences between the two cases.
In practice, only against Apartheid South Africa was international law applied. And there are differences between the two cases.
9/ A real shift to the Apartheid paradigm would inevitably mean shift away - not only from the Occupation paradigm, but also from partition paradigm, which has been central to international law on Israel/Palestine since 1947.
10/ This would be a major shift, to which EU and US would be hostile. And that discussion cannot start without a clear demand from Palestinian national movement to recognise the one-state reality (and such a shift should be firstly a Palestinian decision).
11/ On a human level, it may make more sense to say that Palestinians living under Israeli rule for 53 years deserve vaccines like Israelis, on the basis of equality; and denying vaccines on basis of ethnicity is racism.
12/ But viewing the West Bank as occupied (rather than part of de-facto one state) is crucial to make that demand, and to maintain the limited protections Palestinians now have. It is far from clear what would be gained by giving up these protections.
13/ My point is not to say which paradigm is "right", but rather to point that there's a tension between them and cost/benefit to each. While rhetorically, both can be used simultaneously, ultimately they lead in different directions.
14/ Palestinian struggle in the last 35 years prioritised end of occupation, statehood and self determination. As this has failed, the struggle may shift - but ultimately, it is a matter for Palestinian democratic decision.
