I. The Genesis of Statehood and Displacement (1947–1950)

A. The Mandate, the Partition Plan (UN Resolution 181), and Arab Opposition

The State of Israel emerged from the ashes of the British Mandate for Palestine, formalized by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 on November 29, 1947. This resolution recommended the partition of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, alongside an international zone encompassing Jerusalem and Bethlehem. The proposed territorial division was highly contentious, providing a Jewish state with more than half of Mandate Palestine, despite the fact that Jewish inhabitants comprised less than one-third of the population and owned less than 7% of the land at the time.  

This profound demographic and land ownership disparity rendered the partition proposal fundamentally unacceptable to the Palestinian Arab majority, who constituted over 70% of the population. For the Arabs, the resolution was perceived not as a diplomatic solution but as providing international legitimacy for the armed conquest of Palestine by Zionist forces. While the plan was officially accepted by the Jewish Agency, internal Zionist movements, particularly the Revisionists, objected to the plan for falling “so far short of their goals”. These groups ultimately accepted the plan as a strategic initial measure, providing a secure base where Jewish immigration could continue uninhibited, with the implicit goal of subsequent territorial expansion.  

B. The 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the Establishment of the State of Israel

Following the formal declaration of the State of Israel in May 1948, the ensuing Arab-Israeli War concluded with significant territorial shifts that defined the initial borders of the new state. Israel succeeded in consolidating and expanding its territorial control well beyond the lines stipulated by the 1947 Partition Plan.  

The resulting 1949 armistice lines, known internationally as the Green Line, established the de facto borders that held until 1967. However, the legal framework for these lines contained a critical ambiguity: they were negotiated “without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines”. This intentional vagueness provided a basis for later Israeli governments to argue that territories beyond the Green Line, particularly the West Bank, did not belong to a sovereign state and were therefore “disputed” rather than strictly “occupied” territory post-1967. This legal maneuvering subsequently complicated the application of the Fourth Geneva Convention concerning the establishment of settlements in those territories. The geopolitical situation was further intensified by the bipolar global balance of power, with the United States closely monitoring instability to ensure it did not interfere with its international position relative to the Soviet Union.  

C. The Nakba: Palestinian Expulsion, Flight, and the Denial of Return (UN Res. 194)

The 1948 war resulted in the foundational catastrophe of the Palestinian experience, known as the Nakba (the Catastrophe), characterized by the mass expulsion and flight of the indigenous Palestinian population. Over 750,000 Palestinians were either expelled or fled their homes, becoming refugees in neighboring states and in the remaining portions of Palestine. These refugees and their millions of descendants remain displaced to the current day.  

The international community immediately attempted to address this humanitarian crisis. UN General Assembly Resolution 194, passed in December 1948 and reaffirmed annually thereafter, stipulated that refugees “wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date”. Additionally, the resolution called for compensation for those choosing not to return. However, Israel immediately and consistently rejected the concept of an inherent, unconditional “right” of return for Palestinians. As early as August 1949, Israel formally communicated to the United Nations that a resolution to the refugee issue must be sought through their resettlement in other Arab states, not through their repatriation to Israel. This established a structural incompatibility: the UN simultaneously endorsed the state’s legitimacy (Resolution 181) and the refugee’s legal right to return (Resolution 194). Israel accepted the former while permanently rejecting the latter, ensuring that the conflict would be perpetually intractable because the fundamental premise of Israeli existence (territorial maximization and Jewish demographic majority) was placed in direct opposition to the fundamental humanitarian and legal demands of the Palestinian population (restitution and right of return). This contradiction cemented the refugee crisis as the core legal and moral impasse of the conflict.  

Furthermore, the existence of Israel’s Law of Return, which grants automatic immigration and naturalization rights to any person of Jewish heritage, while simultaneously denying the corresponding Palestinian right of return, is often cited as institutional evidence of systemic ethnic preference, later forming a critical component of the apartheid claim against Israel.  

D. Initial Territorial Control: Distinguishing Gaza and the West Bank

The 1949 armistice agreements defined the immediate political administration of the remaining Palestinian territories. These territories acquired distinct administrative histories, profoundly influencing their later geopolitical status. The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, was formally annexed by Jordan in 1950 and remained under Jordanian administration until 1967. The Gaza Strip, conversely, remained under the administrative control of the Egyptian army until 1967, except for a brief period in 1956.  

The immediate impact of the Nakba drastically altered the demographics of Gaza. Before 1948, Gaza had a population of approximately 80,000 residents; the influx of over 200,000 refugees, primarily from the Jaffa and Beersheba districts, nearly tripled its population. This instantaneous concentration of displaced persons created the conditions for Gaza’s subsequent high density and humanitarian vulnerability. This historical reality reframes the contemporary humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza not merely as a consequence of the post-2005 blockade, but as the enduring physical legacy of the Nakba, necessitating comprehensive historical redress rather than simply temporary humanitarian interventions.  

II. Conflict, Crisis, and the Search for Peace (1967–1980)

A. The 1967 Six-Day War and the Beginning of Military Occupation

The territorial status quo established by the 1949 armistice was shattered by the 1967 Six-Day War. Following the conflict, Israel occupied the West Bank (previously Jordanian) and the Gaza Strip (previously Egyptian), initiating a period of military occupation that Palestinians often refer to as the Naksa (the setback or relapse). This occupation triggered a second wave of displacement, with another 413,000 Palestinians fleeing or being displaced.  

Since 1967, the international community has largely maintained that these territories remain under occupation. Numerous United Nations General Assembly resolutions have demanded Israel’s withdrawal, yet Israel has generally disregarded these resolutions, asserting that the territories are disputed due to the ambiguous nature of the 1949 armistice lines. The ensuing years saw the application of military rule in the occupied territories and the beginning of the Israeli settlement project, establishing irreversible “facts on the ground.”  

B. Globalized Terrorism: The 1972 Munich Olympics Massacre by Black September

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict achieved unprecedented global attention in 1972 with the attack at the Munich Summer Olympics. On September 5, eight Palestinian terrorists, representing the militant group “Black September,” breached the Olympic Village, killing two members of the Israeli team and taking nine hostages. The event, occurring only 20 km from the Dachau concentration camp, was a profound shock to the international community.  

The subsequent confrontation resulted in the deaths of all nine Israeli hostages, along with five of the terrorists and one German policeman. The Olympic Games were temporarily suspended, but continued at the insistence of the IOC President Avery Brundage. This attack fundamentally changed the nature of the conflict, globalizing Palestinian political violence and establishing non-state actors as primary agents, moving the confrontation far beyond traditional state armies and territorial borders.  

C. Israeli Response: Operationalizing Counter-Terrorism and Strategic Retaliation

In response to the Munich attack, Israel launched Operation Wrath of God, a campaign of targeted assassinations directed primarily at members of Black September and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) responsible for the attack. This operation signaled a definitive shift toward preemptive and extra-territorial counter-terrorism efforts, emphasizing kinetic response over purely defensive security measures.  

While Operation Wrath of God successfully achieved its short-term operational and tactical goals, it failed to resolve the underlying conflict. The military action did not eradicate Palestinian terrorism, which simply reappeared in different organizational forms in subsequent decades, such as the violent Abu Nidal group in the 1980s. The persistent security crisis demonstrated that military retaliation alone, however effective tactically, could not solve the deeper political issues nor bring Israel closer to a lasting peace. The decision to engage in globalized counter-terrorism thus established a lasting cycle of extrajudicial retaliation that perpetually failed to address the political roots of the violence, thereby institutionalizing the security conflict.  

D. High-Level Diplomacy: The Camp David Accords (Begin and Sadat)

A major diplomatic breakthrough occurred in 1978 with the Camp David Accords, negotiated under the mediation of U.S. President Jimmy Carter, between Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. Sadat’s dramatic November 1977 decision to visit Jerusalem broke a long-standing deadlock and provided the impetus for direct Israeli-Egyptian negotiations.  

The Accords established a framework for a historic peace treaty, formally concluded in March 1979. Key agreements included Egypt’s recognition of Israel, Israel’s withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula, and U.S. guarantees for Israel’s oil supply. The negotiations were complicated by Begin’s conservative Likud Party, which was committed to the concept of a “greater Israel” and remained intractable on the core issue of exchanging land for peace in the West Bank.  

Crucially, the Accords addressed the Palestinian issue only partially, outlining a formula for Palestinian self-government (autonomy) in Gaza and the West Bank during a five-year interim period, after which negotiations on final status would follow. However, deep divisions persisted regarding the applicability of UN Security Council Resolution 242 to the long-term status of the territories and the fate of Israeli settlements already established. The successful peace treaty with Egypt was achieved by fundamentally separating the Egyptian state’s territorial demands (Sinai) from the complex, non-state Palestinian autonomy question. Because Begin was willing to concede Sinai but remained inflexible regarding the West Bank, this framework implicitly sanctioned the continuation of Israeli control over the latter territories by allowing a major Arab state to exit the conflict. This diplomatic separation prioritized bilateral normalization over the multilateral resolution of the Palestinian statehood issue, enabling the indefinite continuation of military occupation.  

III. Distinguishing the Occupied Territories and the Evolving Security Landscape

The two major Palestinian territories, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, though both occupied in 1967, have evolved under dramatically different administrative structures, leading to distinct systems of control.

A. The West Bank: Governance, Settlements, and Separate Legal Systems

The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, operates under a fragmented system defined by the Oslo Accords (Areas A, B, and C) and deeply embedded Israeli military control. This territory is characterized by a deliberate policy aimed at maximizing Jewish-Israeli control over land, facilitated by land confiscation and the intentional settlement of Jewish Israelis.  

The key feature drawing international legal condemnation is the systematic segregation enforced by two distinct legal and administrative systems: Israeli civil law for Jewish settlers residing in the territory, and Israeli military law for the Palestinian population. This dual system of governance facilitates the displacement of Palestinians, particularly from Area C and East Jerusalem, and institutionalizes discrimination concerning access to resources, courts, and mobility. Policies further restrict the freedom of movement of the Palestinian population within the West Bank.  

B. The Gaza Strip: From Administration to Blockade

The Gaza Strip’s status changed significantly following Israel’s unilateral disengagement in 2005, which removed all settlements and military bases. However, subsequent to the takeover by Hamas, the territory has been subjected to a comprehensive and severe Israeli-Egyptian blockade.  

Control over Gaza is exercised externally through restrictions on its borders, airspace, and maritime access. This results in restricted access to agricultural land and fishing areas in the coastal waters, severely exacerbating the socioeconomic hardship within the densely populated enclave. The blockade is frequently cited as contravening international law due to its collective impact on the civilian population. Measures, such as denying seriously ill Palestinians from Gaza access to essential medical treatment in Israel or even the West Bank, are highlighted by human rights organizations as discriminatory actions that cannot be justified solely on security grounds. This contrast highlights that Israel employs two distinct strategies of permanent control:  

direct internal administrative domination in the West Bank aimed at securing land and settlements, and external isolation and economic strangulation in Gaza aimed at managing a refugee enclave without a direct military presence.

C. The Israeli Security Barrier: Rationale, Route Deviation, and Humanitarian Impact

The construction of the Israeli security barrier, which began during the Second Intifada (starting post-2000), physically manifests Israel’s unilateral approach to conflict management. Israel asserts the barrier is a necessary security measure built in response to waves of Palestinian political violence, citing data that shows a significant reduction in suicide bombings originating from the West Bank (e.g., attacks fell from 73 to 12 in the years following the completion of the first segment).  

The barrier itself is a complex structure involving concrete walls, fences, ditches, razor wire, electronic monitoring systems, and patrol roads. Its total constructed and projected length is approximately 708 km, which is more than twice the length of the 1949 Green Line. The fundamental legal and geopolitical controversy lies in its route: approximately 85% of the barrier runs inside the West Bank, not along the Green Line, effectively isolating about 9.4% of the territory, including East Jerusalem. The primary factor driving this deviation is the need to incorporate Israeli settlements, with 71 settlements and over 85% of the total settler population located on the “Israeli” side of the barrier.  

This dual function—proven security efficacy coupled with massive, intentional deviation to incorporate settlements—confirms the barrier’s role as a tool of political consolidation rather than just a temporary security measure. It effectively attempts to unilaterally determine the future political boundary of Israel, precluding a negotiated, contiguous Palestinian state based on the Green Line.

The deviation has led to severe international legal rulings. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion that the barrier constitutes a violation of international law where it deviates from the Green Line. In 2003, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution demanding its removal. However, the international community’s capacity to enforce this judgment was curtailed when the United States vetoed a UN Security Council resolution in October 2003 that sought to declare the deviated portions illegal and mandate their demolition. This action highlights how geopolitical alignments can override normative international law principles, insulating Israel from legally mandated consequences and reinforcing the viability of its territorial facts on the ground.  

The humanitarian impact on Palestinians is profound. The barrier isolates approximately 7,500 Palestinians in the “Seam Zone” who require special permits to continue living in their own homes. Access to crucial agricultural land, which often lies on the Israeli side of the barrier, is restricted by a cumbersome permit and gate regime. Many of the 80 gates open only for limited periods, such as the six-week olive harvest season, undermining the livelihoods of thousands of families reliant on agriculture.

Table 1: Comparison of the West Bank and Gaza Strip

IV. The Legal and Ethical Debate: Analyzing the Apartheid State Claim

In recent years, major international human rights organizations, including Amnesty International (AI) and Human Rights Watch (HRW), have published detailed reports concluding that Israel maintains a system of apartheid over the Palestinian population. This claim is based on the legal definition of apartheid as codified in international law, which essentially requires three elements : the intent of one racial or ethnic group to maintain domination over another; systematic oppression; and serious violations in the form of inhumane treatment. International law specifies that “racial discrimination” in this context refers to discrimination based on “race, color, descent, or national or ethnic attributed identity”.  

A. Systematic Oppression: Findings by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch

Amnesty International’s analysis argues that Israel’s policies, legislation, and practices since 1948 have been consistently determined by the strategic goal of establishing and maintaining a Jewish demographic majority and maximizing Jewish-Israeli control over land. This system of domination is applied across the entire area under Israeli control, spanning both sides of the Green Line.  

A central piece of evidence supporting the intent to maintain ethnic domination is the institutionalized disparity between the Jewish Law of Return and the systematic denial of the internationally recognized Palestinian Right of Return (UN Res. 194). AI maintains that this disparity creates a privileged national status for Jewish citizens, distinct from standard citizenship, which forms the basis for unequal treatment.  

In the West Bank, the existence of two separate legal systems (Israeli civil law for settlers and Israeli military law for Palestinians) enforces systematic segregation and oppression. Additional discriminatory practices cited include racist seizures of property, large-scale confiscation of Palestinian land, and policies making it impossible for many Palestinians to obtain necessary building permits, especially in East Jerusalem and Area C. The reports argue that this oppression leads to the displacement of the Palestinian population.  

Furthermore, the analysis connects the initial expulsion of 1948 and the denial of the Right of Return directly to the contemporary occupation policies. This linkage establishes the policies not as separate incidents, but as components of a single, continuous, institutionalized system of ethnic domination stretching from 1948 to the present. This challenges the traditional diplomatic framing of the conflict merely as an “occupation” problem solvable by withdrawal, demanding instead a structural overhaul of Israeli identity policies.

B. Serious Violations and Inhumane Treatment

The third criterion involves serious violations and inhumane treatment. Cited violations include unlawful killings, torture, arbitrary arrest and administrative detention, forcible transfer of population, and arbitrary restrictions on Palestinians’ freedom of movement.  

A particularly crucial finding points to measures that lack credible security justification, suggesting they are purely punitive or discriminatory. For example, denying seriously ill Palestinians from the Gaza Strip access to essential medical treatment in Israel or even the West Bank cannot be adequately justified on security grounds. When restrictions cannot be justified as proportionate security necessities, they are legally categorized as elements of “systematic oppression” or “inhumane treatment,” thereby strengthening the legal case that the Israeli system of control crosses the threshold into apartheid. Additionally, the cruel policy barring family reunification between Palestinians married to Israeli citizens in Israel and their spouses in the occupied territories is noted as a deprivation of basic human rights.  

C. Israel’s Defense and International Reaction

The government of Israel vehemently rejects the apartheid designation, labeling the charges as politically motivated and often dismissing them with rhetoric such as “blood libel”. Israel has consistently accused both the International Criminal Court (ICC) and U.N. rights bodies of anti-Israel bias. Israeli officials emphasize that measures restricting movement or access, such as the security barrier, are legitimate actions necessary to ensure the security of Israeli citizens against terrorism.  

However, critics within the international community view these denials as “distractions” that “obscure the real issue: the equal application of international law”. The severity of the charges has spurred significant diplomatic and geopolitical pressure. For instance, Brazil and the Hague Group have coordinated efforts demanding tougher action to end the occupation, with Brazil calling for an international mission akin to the one established in 1962 to counter South Africa’s apartheid regime. South Africa, leveraging its historical perspective, has stressed that sustainable peace requires ending impunity and ensuring that international law is applied equally to all parties.  

V. The Human Cost: Asymmetrical Conflict and Casualty Analysis

A. Military Disparity: The Absence of a Palestinian Standing Army

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is fundamentally defined by its profound military asymmetry. The State of Israel possesses the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), a centralized, conventionally structured national army equipped with advanced technology and substantial air superiority. Conversely, the Palestinian populace lacks any recognized standing army or centralized military command structure. Palestinian resistance and conflict are waged by decentralized, non-state armed factions (e.g., Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad) whose operational capabilities are largely limited to asymmetric warfare, guerrilla tactics, and terrorism. This inherent disparity in military capacity is the core factor guaranteeing that casualty ratios during periods of intense conflict will demonstrate a significant imbalance, directly impacting international legal discussions regarding proportionality and distinction.

B. Cumulative Conflict Fatalities: Historical and Contemporary Data Comparison

Casualty statistics, compiled by organizations like B’Tselem and UN bodies, quantitatively illustrate the lethal asymmetry of the conflict. Before the outbreak of the 2023–present Gaza War, historical cumulative data across selected conflict periods recorded 4,228 Palestinian fatalities compared to 1,024 Israeli fatalities, establishing a long-term ratio exceeding 4:1. Crucially, the majority of those killed on both sides in the general conflict were civilians not directly involved in fighting. Furthermore, children have historically borne a disproportionate burden, with 971 children killed in the conflict, representing 18% of the total recorded deaths in the selected dataset.  

The most recent large-scale conflict, beginning with the October 7, 2023 attacks, has drastically altered the statistical landscape and intensified scrutiny of international humanitarian law.

• October 7 Attacks: The initiating event resulted in 1,195 Israeli deaths, with 828 (68.2%) confirmed as civilians.  
• 2023–Present Gaza War: The subsequent Israeli invasion of Gaza has generated an unprecedented death toll, with over 65,419 people reported killed in the Gaza Strip (as of September 2025 data). Estimates suggest that approximately 80% of these fatalities are civilians. Verification studies further indicate that 70% of the Palestinians killed in residential buildings or similar housing were women and children.  
• West Bank Fatalities: Concurrent with the Gaza conflict, 995 deaths were recorded in the West Bank.  

The sheer scale of the fatalities reported since late 2023 qualitatively changes the historical context, suggesting the conflict has entered a new and far more lethal phase. The recurring, overwhelming civilian toll, especially the data regarding women and children killed in housing, provides direct empirical evidence for international legal bodies to assess whether Israeli military operations consistently adhere to the principles of distinction and proportionality under international humanitarian law.

Table 2: Cumulative Fatalities in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (Selected Data)

VI. The Current Situation and Future Trajectories

A. The Contemporary Political Landscape and Stalemate

The current situation is defined by a profound political stalemate exacerbated by the physical realities established over decades of occupation. The ideological disposition of the Israeli leadership, particularly during recent administrations, has actively worked to undermine the prospects of a two-state solution, with Prime Minister Netanyahu casting governments that support such an outcome as siding with terrorists. This ideology is supported by the physical consolidation of territory enabled by the security barrier, which integrates major settlement blocs into Israel proper.  

On the Palestinian side, the political fragmentation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza prevents the emergence of a unified international negotiating partner, compounding the structural difficulties inherent in any comprehensive peace process.

B. International Efforts and the Rule of Law

The international community’s response has measurably shifted from seeking solely diplomatic dialogue to increasingly demanding accountability under international law, particularly in the wake of the catastrophic casualty figures since late 2023. This shift reflects a “change in the position of the international community,” marked by coordinated diplomatic efforts, such as those by the Hague Group, demanding stronger action to “stop Israel’s war and end the occupation”.  

The confluence of the ICJ advisory opinion against the security barrier , the findings of apartheid by major human rights organizations , and the extreme scale of recent casualty counts collectively demonstrate a profound erosion of Israel’s standing relative to international legal and humanitarian norms. This suggests that the cost of geopolitical isolation may eventually compel a future reconsideration of the current policies of territorial maximalism and security enforcement.  

The seriousness of the situation is underscored by charges of genocide being raised by nations like Brazil and South Africa, the latter stressing that peace cannot be realized while impunity reigns and demanding the equal application of international law. This international revulsion has also manifested in cultural and sporting spheres, with several European bodies considering the exclusion or suspension of Israeli participation in events like Eurovision and UEFA competitions.  

`C. Synthesis and Challenges for Resolution

The history of Israel from its founding is a narrative defined by fundamental, unresolved contradictions: the legitimacy of the state paired with the denial of rights to the indigenous population; the pursuit of security paired with policies that generate systematic oppression. The path to a lasting settlement faces three persistent, interconnected obstacles:

1. Refugee Status and Demographic Control: The ideological refusal to acknowledge the Palestinian Right of Return remains the primary legal and ideological barrier, as the policy is inherently linked to maintaining Israel’s Jewish national majority.  
2. Settlement Integration and Territorial Contiguity: The physical reality of the security barrier, deviating drastically to encompass major settlement blocs, has fundamentally compromised the viability and territorial contiguity of any future Palestinian state. With 85% of the barrier running inside the West Bank and isolating 9.4% of the land, the Green Line has become politically obsolete as a basis for negotiation.  
3. Ending Military Asymmetry and Systematic Domination: The overwhelming statistical disparity in military power and the structures of “systematic oppression” documented by human rights bodies , evidenced by the disproportionate casualty figures , must be dismantled. The political debate is shifting away from the theoretical possibility of a two-state solution toward acknowledging the   de facto reality of a single, deeply asymmetrical governance system currently operating between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Addressing the systemic nature of this asymmetry and establishing true equality under the law are prerequisite conditions for any durable political resolution.

Historical Background

• UN Partition Plan, 29 November 1947 – PalQuest
• Nakba – Wikipedia

Wars & Displacement

• The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 – U.S. Office of the Historian
• 1948 Palestinian Expulsion and Flight – Wikipedia
• From the 1948 Nakba to the 1967 Naksa – BADIL Resource Center
• Palestinian Right of Return – Wikipedia

Peace Efforts

• Camp David Accords and the Arab-Israeli Peace Process – U.S. Office of the Historian

Barriers & Territories

• West Bank Barrier – Wikipedia
• The Humanitarian Impact of the Barrier – UN OCHA
• OCHA Factsheet: The Humanitarian Impact of the Barrier – UN
• The Legal Status of the West Bank and Gaza – UN

Apartheid Debate

• Amnesty International and the Apartheid Claim Against Israel – SWP Berlin
• Crime of Apartheid | Amnesty International USA
• Israel Calls on Amnesty International to Not Release Report – PBS

Modern Context & News

• Israeli-Palestinian Fatalities Since 2000 – UN OCHA
• Casualties of the Gaza War – Wikipedia
• Israel Defies Global Pressure, but Its Isolation Grows – Washington Post

Related Events

• Munich 1972 Summer Olympics – Olympics.com
• Operation Wrath of God – Cambridge University Press

Additional Sources

• Electronic Intifada – Despite Abbas and Balfour, We Will Return to Our Homes