+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

A new framework for viewing Israel's regime in the West Bank

The existing frameworks we have for addressing Israel’s rule over the Palestinians are flawed and becoming less relevant. Comparing it to other regimes that share one of its prominent characteristics, institutionalized discrimination, can create space for new ideas.

By Yariv Mohar

Israeli troops check the ID of a Palestinian woman and her child at a checkpoint in the occupied West Bank, May 18, 2018. (Wisam Hashlamoun/Flash90)

Israeli troops check the ID of a Palestinian woman and her child at a checkpoint in the occupied West Bank, May 18, 2018. (Wisam Hashlamoun/Flash90)

In the 51 years since Israel seized control of the West Bank and Gaza, Palestinians, Israelis, and the international community have come up with various frameworks for understanding and trying to resolve the situation. While the international community still prefers to think about Israel’s military control as a form of temporary occupation, more and more people have begun framing Israel, and particularly its rule over the West Bank, as a form of apartheid.

And yet, neither framework captures precisely the kind of regime that Israel has built over the past five decades. Rather than belligerent military occupation or apartheid, I propose viewing Israel’s rule in the West Bank as a “regime of discrimination.” A comparative study I conducted for Rabbis for Human Rights, which sought to rank discriminatory regimes globally, concluded that Israel’s rule over the West Bank is the third-most discriminatory regime in the world today.

The study (Hebrew) analyzes cases of institutional discrimination and aims at opening up a relatively new and potentially more effective understanding of the issue at hand. By comparing the situations in various regimes around the world, the study analyzes and compares the treatment of minorities in terms of: legal status, political opportunities, and suffrage (i.e. the right to vote and be elected or, in non-democratic regimes, the option of gaining senior positions in the political establishment), the right to freedom of movement and the freedom to live anywhere in the country, and the allocation of resources.

According to the criteria laid out in the study, Israel’s rule in the West Bank came in behind Lebanon’s treatment of Palestinian refugees and Myanmar’s treatment of its Rohingya minority. Along the same criteria, Israel’s regime in the West Bank was ranked as more discriminatory than Morocco’s treatment of the Sahrawis in Western Sahara, Russia’s treatment of the Chechnyans and Crimean Tatars, Pakistan’s treatment of Pashtuns, China’s treatment of Tibetans, Turkey’s treatment of the Kurds, and India’s treatment of the Kashmiris.

It is important to note that the study did not deal with levels of oppression (which, in cases like Myanmar, is far more severe than in the West Bank) or violence. It sought to create a framework that looked exclusively at regimes that institutionalize discrimination.

A flawed discourse

Beyond ranking, these findings provide us with a new framework to think about Israel’s regime in the West Bank, especially as existing paradigms become less relevant. The classic framework used among international institutions vis-à-vis the occupied territories is based on the legal and conceptual framework of a military occupation amid security concerns and territorial disputes. This type of framework is used when describing various similar cases around the world, including West Sahara or Kashmir. What usually results from this framing is a single solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank following a political agreement.

Such framing legitimates the endless and fruitless cycles of “peace negotiations,” which give the occupation a “temporary” veneer. And yet the occupation endures, lasting a lifetime for many Palestinians. In a sense, the occupation framework creates the conditions for its own persistence.



In the past few years, we have seen the “apartheid” analogy, which seemingly prescribes sanctions on Israel, similar to South Africa’s apartheid regime, gain momentum internationally. Yet the apartheid discourse remains on the political margins, partly because Israel’s regime is in so many ways different than the South African case.

In contrast, framing Israeli rule as a regime of discrimination means it is not bound to one specific historical example and its particularities. Instead, it allows us to view the regime in the West Bank as a general state of affairs, making it harder to dismiss and easier to utilize in comparative studies.

Thus, I propose understanding Israel’s rule over the West Bank as a “regime of discrimination.” As this study suggests, doing so will help us expose just how unexceptional yet severe Israel’s rule over the West Bank truly is. And perhaps, viewing it through a different framework could lead to innovative ways of resolving it.

Yariv Mohar is the head of the media and research department in Rabbis for Human Rights and a PhD student in sociology at Ben Gurion University.

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article

    * Required


    1. Jeremy Bou Assi

      This piece is less useful than discussing the gender of angels. The Israeli people doesn’t think Palestinians are living a shitty life just because of the “apartheid” labeling? Is this serious?
      By the way, congrats for eluding the most glaring injustice of Palestinian life in Mandatory Palestine: colonization. Palestinians have been and are being dispossessed of their land. There you have it: Israel is a colony in a foreign land, just like French Algeria.
      So please don’t compare it to Lebanon’s discriminatory policies towards the refugees you created and whose return you have always refused. It is nothing short of immoral.

      Reply to Comment
    2. Bruce Gould

      Here’s an example of “precisely the kind of regime that Israel has built over the past five decades.”:


      Five Israeli soldiers were charged with beating two handcuffed and blindfolded Palestinian detainees, according to an indictment filed in an Israeli military court on Thursday.

      (of course, most cases like this don’t even make it to public awareness)

      Reply to Comment
    3. Evan

      I agree. This looks a bit defensive. Why do we have to relitigate whether or not the Occupied Territories are under apartheid rule?

      Reply to Comment
    4. Michal Longfelder

      I am an attorney specializing in discrimination. I cannot fathom how anyone can equate a government that discriminates with a military regime that controls virtually every aspect of public life, has the ability to break into one’s home without a warrant, demolish family homes as collective punishment and even occasionally shoot unarmed teens in the back as they run away. Discrimination is an appropriate term for how Palestinian Israelis experience life, but it is simply unacceptable to downgrade the occupation of the West Bank to a mere civil violation of housing and employment.

      Reply to Comment
    5. Emanuel Shahaf

      To describe Israel’s occupation as a discriminatory regime is certainly a euphemism and one that will likely make it sound less objectionable than apartheid regime, even if technically the former is more accurate and appropriate. Are we sure that we are helping the resolution of the conflict by making it sound more normal ? After all, “discriminatory” certainly sounds like the new normal…

      Reply to Comment
    6. Ben

      I have the same reactions to this puzzling article as do Michal Longfelder and Emanuael Shahaf, and they have articulated the matter well.

      Reply to Comment
    7. Wesley Parish

      Actually, you can find plenty of material relating to discrimination of a similar nature by comparing Palestinian experiences of Israeli rule in the West Bank and Gaza to that of Jewish communities in the Pale of Settlement in the Tsarist Russian Empire and various other European kingdoms during the Middle Ages up to the Emancipation.

      My most cynical assessment of Israel was as the Second Coming of the Kingdom of Jerusalem; a not so despairing assessment had it the Tsarist Republic of Israel.

      (Of course, I also compare An Nakba to the Expulsion of the Sephardim from Sepharad aka Spain; the expulsion of the Palestinians to form a Jewish state compared to the expulsion of the Jews to form a Christian kingdom.)

      Reply to Comment