A visit to the West Bank: social and religious apartheid – part two
September 12, 2026
In part two of a four-part series, daily life in the West Bank reveals how checkpoints, travel restrictions and controls over religious and cultural life shape Palestinians’ experience of Israeli occupation.
In talking to Palestinians about the resentment over layers of economic restrictions, it was clear there was equally a deep anger about their effect on Palestinian society and their everyday lives. In a discussion with a group of Hebron University students I asked what the most challenging problem they faced was. Surprisingly, they all nominated restrictions on travel. Explaining their choice, they pointed to the 30 or so security barriers surrounding Hebron and around the special zone H2 (where an enclave of Jewish settlers lived). They were being closed, most often, in an utterly random manner, sometimes for hours but also for several days or even weeks when the IDF deemed there was a security risk. That necessitated use of a phone app to provide at least some real-time warning of what gates were open or closed. Even so, any trip to other towns or cities could have to be cancelled at short notice or subject to lengthy delays.
This was well illustrated later on my trip from Hebron to Ramallah, which should have taken two and a half hours (but which would have taken 45 minutes had my driver been an Israeli). ‘Should have’ are the operative words. On our way back from Ramallah, a random (and intensive) car-by-car check effectively closed our road for one and a half hours, making our trip time four hours.
The students also pointed out travelling outside Palestine could not be guaranteed even with a Palestinian Authority passport: at any time they could be stopped at Israeli checkpoints which they had to transit to get to airports. But the most oppressive aspect of such restrictions, they said, was the systematic randomness imposed by the IDF – a comprehensive form of control in that nothing could be planned with any assurance. As such, it enabled the IDF to demonstrate its unlimited authority given it could be applied at any time of the day or night without reason.
Such an intimidating environment became apparent when their views about the 7 October incursion were sought. None were prepared to respond, saying they could not speak their minds in such an open environment. On the question of whether a two-state solution was desirable, all rejected it. Such was the oppression in their daily lives, and given so many of their family members and acquaintances had at one time or another come into conflict or been arrested by the IDF, they no longer trusted the Israelis. The only solution they saw was a single Palestinian state – albeit one they could not describe how to achieve.
The problem of sharing responsibilities with Israel was constantly in evidence in Hebron where, as a city in administrative area A of the West Bank, the Oslo Accords had given the Palestinians full administrative authority other than the security of Israeli citizens. My attention was drawn to the Israeli government’s placement of some 200 Orthodox Jews in the special enclave known as H2 in the heart of the traditional Muslim old town quarter. 7,000 Palestinians living in H2 were being subjected to a nightly 10pm to 7am curfew not imposed on the Israeli residents.
Even viewing the H2 area proved to be a risky operation. Looking out from a Palestinian-owned building on the border of H2, we were almost immediately spotted by an IDF post within H2, with a message sent to depart immediately – no reason given – if we didn’t want to risk an incident, or even being shot at. The IDF soldiers have a regular presence in the old town, closing off large parts to allow the H2 Jewish settlers to participate in a unique sharing arrangement of the Ibrahimi Mosque, where Abraham’s tomb is said to be located. The IDF’s presence is intimidating: they routinely carry high-powered automatic rifles, wear full battle dress and, most often, have masked faces.
Using their responsibility for the security of Jewish residents of Hebron, the IDF have increasingly restricted access to the Ibrahimi Mosque for those of the Islamic faith. For my own visit with a former Palestinian Authority minister for culture, permission was needed, and the entrance was guarded by the IDF, whose attitude to us bordered on insolence. My host pointed out there had been a progressive restriction of Muslim worshippers’ access to the Ibrahimi Mosque since 7 October. The numbers had now halved, and on Fridays often hundreds of worshippers were regularly being prevented from entering and forced to pray outside. Repeated bans on calls to prayer – on the basis they coincided with Jewish prayer times but without reciprocity – had added to the injustices.
But assessing whether what may be seen as inhumane acts on the economic, religious and cultural life of Palestinians in the West Bank legally amount to apartheid is a somewhat complex question. There are two relevant international legal frameworks: the UN-initiated International Convention on the Suppression of Apartheid and the ICC’s Rome Statute. The International Convention refers to:
“Inhumane acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group over another and systematically oppressing them.”
The 1998 Rome Statute is similar but refers to institutionalised regimes of systematic oppression. So the key words are inhumane acts which are institutionalised, systematic and maintained. While the conventions do not define race, there is a consensus accepted by the UN that it refers to colour, descent or national or ethnic origin and thus clearly includes Israelis and Palestinians. As well, there is the necessary question of whether Israel is an occupying power in the parlance of apartheid. Both the UN and the ICJ find that Israel’s exercise of security powers and defence over the West Bank means it is indeed an occupying power. Finally, there is the necessity to show intent, as the definitions refer to domination and oppression by the occupying power.