The truth about Israel's 'vaccine apartheid'
Tamar Klajman argues that the media’s claims of Israel's legal obligation to vaccinate Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are inaccurate. They undermine Palestinian legitimacy and force Israel on the defensive, widening the gap between the two nations and stifling opportunities for conversation.
Source: unsplash
A recent Lawyers Without Borders blogpost on UCL Reflect supports allegations of “vaccine apartheid” against Israel, claiming that they have a legal obligation to vaccinate Palestinian citizens in Gaza and the West Bank. At the time of writing this article, requests for the right of reply have all been ignored.
After the 1967 war, Israel was left in control of the West Bank and Gaza. Israeli disengagement from Gaza occurred in 2005, and subsequently it has fallen under the control of Islamist group Hamas – an organisation which some, including the U.S. and the EU, define as terrorist. In 1993 the Oslo Accords were signed, transferring many civil competences in the West Bank (including health) to the Palestinian Authority (PA). A claim exists that Arabs and Jews complete legal equality within Israel, although frequent apartheid claims are made against the state.
In addition to being factually inaccurate, such claims are destructive and counterproductive. Claims of Israel's legal responsibility for the medical welfare of Palestinian citizens in the West Bank and Gaza delegitimize the PA's rule whilst forcing Israel on the defensive. In my opinion, meaningful improvements are much harder to achieve.
The UN, amongst others, claim that Israel has a legal responsibility to vaccinate Palestinian citizens under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Yet previously the International Committee of Red Cross interpreted the Convention as absolving occupying powers from responsibilities of handling epidemics when the national authorities have the means of managing the populations health requirements. As health competences were completely transferred to the PA during the Oslo Accords (Article 17(2) expressly provides for vaccination distribution) and ample funds for the population's medical needs were provided, Israel cannot be legally responsible for their vaccinations.
The PA's actions demonstrate their belief that the provision of vaccines was their responsibility. Initially they never asked Israel for help, rejecting medical aid from the UAE only because it arrived via the Israeli airport. A PA Ministry of Health senior official expressly stated that they did not expect Israel to purchase vaccines on their behalf. Working in conjunction with the World Health Organisation, the PA have successfully purchased the AstraZeneca, Moderna, Sinopharm and Sputnik vaccines without requesting any Israeli involvement. Arguably, it was only once anti-Israel critics successfully began this “medical apartheid” campaign did the PA release a statement outlining Israel's supposed responsibilities.
Ignoring the decision at Oslo – regardless of the failures of subsequent peace agreements – only reduces legitimacy of the PA's authority, effectively saying they are unable to care for their population and should transfer civil competences back to Israel.
Other arguments only make cooperation and assistance a more formidable task. The Israeli Supreme Court decision, stating that gas masks must be provided to Palestinians and Israelis alike, has been cited as proof of Israel's responsibility to vaccinate the Palestinian Territories. However, this 1991 decision preceded the Oslo Accords and the subsequent transfer of administrative powers to the PA, making it legally inappropriate. At a time when Hamas has complete control over Gaza and the PA over West Bank citizens' health requirements, this argument cannot be applicable.
Critics cited the remarkable speed of the vaccination program rollout as proof that Israel can vaccinate in the West Bank and Gaza, but simply refuses to do so. Such claims overlook the structural reasons for Israel's success which is largely down to its heavily centralised healthcare system. The argument that they could do the same in the West Bank presupposes a similar medical infrastructure. Unfortunately, this does not exist.
Israel has been blamed for the poor healthcare systems in Palestinian Territories, despite the exclusive Hamas and PA control of these areas for more than 20 years. Vast sums have been provided to both regimes, unfortunately they spend it on building secret tunnels to penetrate Israel's security fence and salaries for those convicted of terrorism, the more heinous the crime the greater the stipend. This leaves Israel in a dilemma. They have expressed the wish to help the Palestinian people for both their sakes, but they know the PA spends approximately $15 million a month on the salaries of terrorists languishing in prison.
Such apartheid claims only inflict further damage upon the wounded relationship between Palestinians and Israelis. Within the State of Israel, including East Jerusalem, vaccines have been available to all citizens regardless of ethnic or religious background. When critics purposefully overlook this, crying “medical apartheid,” Israelis (Jews and Arabs alike) are forced to defend their country, creating more bad will. Furthermore, despite the absence of legal obligations, Israel has provided ample medical help to the West Bank and Gaza, supplying medical equipment, providing training to medical staff, vaccinating Palestinian workers and providing 5,000 vaccines to the PA to date.
As nations across the world struggle to access vaccines it is the responsibility of others to help them. However, every government has a duty to protect their citizens before providing aid elsewhere. Israel must not be held to a higher standard than others.
Although Israel has no legal obligation to aid the Palestinians, it can be argued that they have a moral one. Israeli Health minister Yuli Edelstien said Israel would "definitely consider" vaccinating Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza once Israeli's were vaccinated. Whilst Israel has subsequently funded numerous aid missions for Palestinians as stated above, this conversation will be significantly harder to have now that the international media has intervened, demonising Israel with fabrications.
With every media intervention and their “soundbite” headlines, the gap between Palestinians and Israelis gradually widens, slowly chipping away at any hopes for peace. As stated in an article published earlier this year, peace can only be achieved when we learn to hold a conversation with the “Other.” Constant calls of “apartheid” make this impossible. Israel is forced to repeatedly disprove this libel whilst Palestinian legitimacy is continuously weakened by those claiming to defend them. Until falsehoods are abandoned for legitimate critiques, conversations remain difficult to foster and peace is but an elusive dream.
Pi Opinion content does not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial team, Pi Media society, Students’ Union UCL or University College London. We aim to publish opinions from across the student body — if you read anything you would like to respond to, get in touch via email
Pi Opinion content does not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial team, Pi Media society, Students’ Union UCL or University College London. We aim to publish opinions from across the student body — if you read anything you would like to respond to, get in touch via email