Challenges to International Humanitarian Law: Israel’s Occupation Policy, Peter Maurer, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), 2012.

In this article, ICRC President Peter Maurer argues that Israel’s occupation policies in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza raise serious international humanitarian law concerns.

He examines settlements, the separation barrier, Gaza closures, and occupation law while emphasizing civilian protection, legal obligations, and long-term humanitarian consequences.

1. International Humanitarian Law (IHL) Remains Essential During Occupation and Conflict

2. Israel’s Occupation Is One of the Longest Military Occupations in Modern History

3. The Occupation Must Be Evaluated Through the Law of Belligerent Occupation

4. Israeli Settlements Violate International Humanitarian Law and Reshape Palestinian Territory

5. The West Bank Barrier Creates Serious Humanitarian and Legal Problems

6. East Jerusalem Policies Place Continuous Pressure on Palestinian Communities

7. The Closure of Gaza Has Produced Severe Humanitarian Consequences

8. Security Concerns Do Not Eliminate Humanitarian Law Obligations

9. Respect for Humanitarian Law Is Essential for Reducing Suffering and Building Future Peace

⭐ Star Facts

• The article argues that Israel’s control of the West Bank and Gaza since 1967 makes it one of the longest sustained military occupations in modern history, raising questions about how occupation law functions when a supposedly temporary arrangement lasts for generations.
• Maurer argues that international humanitarian law does not prohibit security measures, but it does prohibit using military occupation to permanently alter territory, seize land, transfer population, or force demographic change.
• The ICRC’s position is that Israeli settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention because they transfer the occupying power’s civilian population into occupied territory and fundamentally reshape the territory’s demographic and economic character.
• The article reframes the West Bank Barrier debate from “wall vs. no wall” to a question of route and humanitarian impact, arguing that the barrier’s path beyond the Green Line affects movement, access to land, jobs, schools, healthcare, and community cohesion.
• Maurer argues that the core legal question in occupation is not whether security threats exist—they clearly do—but whether security policies remain proportionate and consistent with humanitarian obligations toward civilians.
• The article suggests that humanitarian law is not primarily about determining who is politically right or wrong in a conflict. Instead, it asks whether policies preserve civilian dignity, basic rights, and the possibility of future coexistence despite ongoing conflict.
• One of the paper’s deepest claims is that violations of humanitarian law are not only humanitarian problems but also strategic ones: policies that create long-term suffering, displacement, and loss of trust may undermine the prospects for future peace and even a state’s own long-term interests.