Israel’s latest moves in the occupied West Bank are not being framed in dramatic language inside the country. There has been no formal declaration of annexation, no parliamentary ceremony proclaiming sovereignty over the hills and valleys east of the Green Line. Instead, the changes have come through cabinet decisions, legal revisions, and administrative transfers—quiet adjustments that, taken together, are reshaping the political geography of the territory captured in 1967.

Earlier this week, Israel’s Security Cabinet approved a package of measures expanding Israeli civilian authority in parts of the West Bank. On paper, the steps may appear technical: repealing restrictions that barred the sale of land in the occupied territory to Israeli citizens; reopening sealed land registration records; transferring planning and building authority in a settlement bloc near Hebron from a Palestinian municipal body to Israel’s civil administration.

But critics argue that these are not mere bureaucratic reforms. They represent a steady shift from temporary occupation toward permanent control – what many legal scholars describe as “creeping annexation.”

The legal architecture of control

Since the signing of the Oslo Accords in the 1990s, the West Bank has been divided into Areas A, B, and C. Area A falls under Palestinian civil and security control; Area B under Palestinian civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security oversight; Area C – comprising roughly 60 percent of the territory – remains under full Israeli civil and security control.

This arrangement was presented as interim, a five-year transitional phase meant to culminate in final-status negotiations. Nearly three decades later, the interim has hardened into permanence.

But critics argue that these are not mere bureaucratic reforms. They represent a steady shift from temporary occupation toward permanent control – what many legal scholars describe as “creeping annexation.”

But critics argue that these are not mere bureaucratic reforms. They represent a steady shift from temporary occupation toward permanent control – what many legal scholars describe as “creeping annexation.”

The latest cabinet measures reportedly extend Israeli civilian administrative reach into areas previously reserved – at least formally – for Palestinian governance. Reopening land registration records and permitting land acquisition by Israelis in Areas A and B does more than facilitate property transactions. It reconfigures who has authority over land, who decides zoning and planning, and who ultimately controls development.

The United Nations human rights office warned that the changes would allow Israeli authorities and private individuals to acquire land in zones that, under Oslo, were intended to remain under Palestinian civil jurisdiction. If implemented fully, such policies blur the already thin lines separating Areas A, B, and C.

This is annexation without proclamation: not a flag planted overnight, but a web of administrative measures that integrate territory into the occupying power’s legal and economic systems.

Oslo’s legacy: De facto annexation and an international mandate for subjugation

International law and contested interpretations

Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, the transfer of an occupying power’s civilian population into occupied territory is widely considered illegal. The overwhelming majority of international legal scholars and United Nations bodies maintain that Israeli settlements violate this principle.

Israel disputes this interpretation. Successive governments have argued that the West Bank is “disputed” rather than “occupied” territory, pointing to the absence of recognized sovereign control prior to 1967 and invoking historical and security claims. Israeli officials often describe settlement expansion as a matter of housing growth or natural demographic development rather than territorial acquisition.

Yet the international consensus remains firm. United Nations officials have repeatedly warned that unilateral measures altering the character and status of the occupied territory contravene international law and undermine Palestinians’ right to self-determination.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk characterized the recent cabinet decisions as part of a broader pattern that risks accelerating annexation in breach of international norms. His remarks reflect mounting concern that what was once incremental has become systemic.

China, too, entered the debate. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian reiterated Beijing’s opposition to settlement construction and “all attempts to annex or encroach upon Palestinian territory.” While diplomatic statements alone rarely alter realities on the ground, they signal growing unease beyond Israel’s immediate regional context.

From security to sovereignty

Israel has often justified its presence in the West Bank through the language of security. The territory’s elevated terrain overlooks Israel’s coastal plain, where much of the population resides. Israeli leaders have argued that withdrawal without guarantees would expose the country to strategic vulnerability.

Security concerns are not trivial in a region marked by recurring violence. Yet the latest measures are not framed primarily in security terms. They concern land registries, zoning authorities, and civil administration—tools of governance rather than battlefield defense.

The transfer of planning authority near Hebron is emblematic. Planning determines what can be built, where infrastructure will run, and which communities will expand. Whoever controls planning shapes the physical and demographic future of the land.

In settlement blocs, Israeli civil administration oversight tends to facilitate infrastructure development – roads, utilities, housing approvals—that integrate settlements more tightly with Israel proper. Palestinians, by contrast, often face restrictive permitting regimes and demolitions for structures deemed unauthorized.

This asymmetry deepens the perception that occupation is no longer temporary but transformative.

The Palestinian Authority’s shrinking space

For the Palestinian Authority, already weakened by internal divisions and declining public legitimacy, any erosion of jurisdiction is existential. The Authority’s mandate rests on limited autonomy within defined territorial spheres. If those spheres contract or become porous to Israeli administrative intervention, its credibility diminishes further.

Analysts warn that undermining Palestinian governance structures risks producing a vacuum. Without meaningful authority, the Palestinian leadership may find it increasingly difficult to justify security coordination or diplomatic engagement.

The Oslo framework, however flawed, created channels for civil administration and economic cooperation. Dismantling those arrangements without a negotiated alternative leaves an uncertain and potentially volatile landscape.

Political currents inside Israel

The domestic political environment in Israel is also relevant. Settlement expansion enjoys strong backing among certain political factions, particularly within religious-nationalist constituencies that view the West Bank – referred to in Hebrew as Judea and Samaria—as part of the biblical homeland.

Coalition dynamics often shape policy momentum. Governments reliant on pro-settlement parties may advance measures incrementally to satisfy their base while avoiding the diplomatic shockwave of a formal annexation declaration.

This is annexation without proclamation: not a flag planted overnight, but a web of administrative measures that integrate territory into the occupying power’s legal and economic systems.

This is annexation without proclamation: not a flag planted overnight, but a web of administrative measures that integrate territory into the occupying power’s legal and economic systems.

This incrementalism allows Israeli leaders to test international reactions. In 2020, proposals for formal annexation of large portions of the West Bank were reportedly suspended amid diplomatic pressure. Administrative measures, by contrast, attract criticism but less immediate punitive action.

Thus, the strategy shifts from bold proclamation to procedural consolidation.

Diplomatic repercussions

Settlement activity has long strained Israel’s relations with much of the international community, including allies who support Israel’s security yet oppose unilateral territorial changes.

European governments have consistently warned that expanding settlements undermines the viability of a two-state solution based on pre-1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps. Multilateral forums frequently pass resolutions condemning such actions, though enforcement mechanisms remain limited.

The risk for Israel is not only reputational but strategic. Continued expansion may deepen its isolation in global institutions and complicate partnerships beyond traditional alliances. As geopolitical alignments shift, sustained international criticism could carry greater economic or legal implications.

At the same time, some regional normalization efforts have demonstrated that settlement expansion does not automatically preclude diplomatic breakthroughs. The calculus is complex, shaped by broader security and economic interests.

A landscape being remade

The debate ultimately turns on whether these policies represent routine governance adjustments or steps toward irreversible territorial integration.

Annexation in international law traditionally involves the formal incorporation of territory into a state’s sovereign domain. But modern geopolitics has blurred the boundaries between de jure and de facto control. When legal systems, infrastructure networks, and civilian populations extend across contested lines, the distinction between temporary occupation and permanent incorporation narrows.

For the Palestinian Authority, already weakened by internal divisions and declining public legitimacy, any erosion of jurisdiction is existential. The Authority’s mandate rests on limited autonomy within defined territorial spheres. If those spheres contract or become porous to Israeli administrative intervention, its credibility diminishes further.

For the Palestinian Authority, already weakened by internal divisions and declining public legitimacy, any erosion of jurisdiction is existential. The Authority’s mandate rests on limited autonomy within defined territorial spheres. If those spheres contract or become porous to Israeli administrative intervention, its credibility diminishes further.

In the West Bank, roads connect settlements directly to Israeli cities. Israeli law increasingly applies to settlers, while Palestinians remain subject to military regulations. Planning authorities shape demographic realities. Land registries determine ownership claims that may be difficult to reverse.

The cumulative effect is a territorial mosaic in which lines drawn on diplomatic maps struggle to match the facts on the ground.

READ: Adalah says West Bank land settlement plan could amount to war crime

The future of the two-state vision

For decades, the two-state solution has been the dominant diplomatic paradigm: an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, living in peace and security. Critics argue that relentless settlement expansion has fragmented the West Bank into enclaves, making territorial contiguity increasingly implausible.

Supporters of the two-state framework maintain that negotiated land swaps could accommodate major settlement blocs while preserving Palestinian statehood. Yet each administrative expansion complicates that formula.

The question now confronting policymakers is whether incremental measures are quietly foreclosing political options. If annexation proceeds in all but name, future negotiations may confront an altered reality in which reversing administrative integration proves politically and legally arduous.

A moment of reckoning

Israel’s latest decisions have intensified scrutiny because they reveal the machinery behind territorial transformation. Not tanks crossing borders, but clerks reopening registries; not declarations of sovereignty, but transfers of planning authority.

For Palestinians, these moves signal further contraction of space—both physical and political. For Israel, they promise deeper entrenchment of communities whose permanence many citizens consider non-negotiable. For the international community, they pose a familiar dilemma: how to respond to gradual change that cumulatively reshapes a conflict long deemed intractable.

As debate intensifies, the core issue extends beyond settlement housing units or individual land transactions. It concerns the evolving legal and administrative architecture of control—an architecture that may determine whether the West Bank remains a territory awaiting negotiated resolution or becomes, step by step, a landscape irrevocably absorbed.

In the absence of formal annexation, the transformation is less visible but no less consequential. History often records not only the dramatic moments of proclamation, but the quieter processes through which maps are redrawn and futures redefined.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

© Middle East Monitor