Changes

Since the application of sovereignty under discussion addresses areas of the Land of Israel in which there is only very sparse Arab presence, the claim is incomprehensible, since most of the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria are clustered in Areas A and B, which are already under Palestinian Authority law, not Israeli law. If Israel is not currently an apartheid state, applying Israeli law to places of Jewish settlement will not change that.

Since the application of sovereignty under discussion addresses areas of the Land of Israel in which there is only very sparse Arab presence, the claim is incomprehensible, since most of the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria are clustered in Areas A and B, which are already under Palestinian Authority law, not Israeli law. If Israel is not currently an apartheid state, applying Israeli law to places of Jewish settlement will not change that.

But the apartheid claim, in its various formulations, is recycled at every seemingly opportune moment to question the Jewish people's right to a national home in the Land of Israel; a right that was recognized by the San Remo Conference 100 years ago – and includes the right to make aliyah, settle there, and manage the land in a manner that will facilitate that; a right that was also approved and ratified in Article 80 of the UN Charter.

But the apartheid claim, in its various formulations, is recycled at every seemingly opportune moment to question the Jewish people's right to a national home in the Land of Israel; a right that was recognized by the San Remo Conference 100 years ago – and includes the right to make aliyah, settle there, and manage the land in a manner that will facilitate that; a right that was also approved and ratified in Article 80 of the [[UN Charter]].

The claim was raised in the past, when Israeli declared sovereignty over east Jerusalem and the Old City, when it applied Israeli law to the Golan Heights and when the Knesset amended the Basic Law: Citizenship to prevent family unification between Palestinians and Israeli Arabs. When the High Court challenges the policy of developing Jewish settlement in Israel; tramples the Basic Law: The Knesset, which disqualifies parties and candidates that reject Israel's existence as a Jewish state from participating in elections; and might soon do the same to the nation-state law, heaven forbid – it lends its voice to the claim that the fulfillment of Zionist values is inherently racist. That is what formed and still forms the base of the claims about apartheid.

The claim was raised in the past, when Israeli declared sovereignty over east Jerusalem and the Old City, when it applied Israeli law to the Golan Heights and when the Knesset amended the Basic Law: Citizenship to prevent family unification between Palestinians and Israeli Arabs. When the High Court challenges the policy of developing Jewish settlement in Israel; tramples the Basic Law: The Knesset, which disqualifies parties and candidates that reject Israel's existence as a Jewish state from participating in elections; and might soon do the same to the nation-state law, heaven forbid – it lends its voice to the claim that the fulfillment of Zionist values is inherently racist. That is what formed and still forms the base of the claims about apartheid.