On February 1, the Biden administration issued an executive order on violent extremism by settlers in the West Bank, which has been increasing over the past several months with the world watching the war in Gaza. The Biden administration accompanied this order with sanctions on four settlers who, it charged, had directly carried out violence or intimidation. This month, the Biden administration expanded the sanctions, adding three more settlers and two illegal outposts, which it said were bases used to “perpetuate violence against Palestinians.”

This was met in some corners with condemnation: This executive order is about violence in the West Bank carried out by a limited number of settlers, while the Israeli army kills tens of thousands of people in Gaza, aided by the United States. Elsewhere, it was heralded as a potentially major development, a warning to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, particularly given that U.S. officials told The Wall Street Journal that they were considering sanctioning two of his coalition’s extremist members, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

Sanctions are a tool, one intended to punish or change behavior. The behavior that’s being punished is clear: extremist settler violence. But will the behavior on the part of the Israeli government change? And what are the sanctions communicating to the Israeli people about their government—and about the United States? The Biden administration has given itself the power to go after individuals and entities in Israel. That could include soldiers in the IDF or ministers in the government—and, theoretically, even U.S. citizens and groups that support violent settlers. This would not only suggest a seismic shift in U.S. policy but could put pressure on Netanyahu’s coalition government—or make Israeli citizens more aware and more critical of violent settlers and illegal settlements.

As with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s recent call for new Israeli elections, the move is unprecedented and significant as a symbol. Whether it’s significant as a policy depends on what happens next.

“I think it’s a very significant step,” said Dov Waxman, director of the UCLA Y&S Nazarian Center for Israel Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles. In some ways, he said, the significance is masked by its initial targeting of just four individuals. The executive order could be interpreted very narrowly—but it could also be quite broad.

“I would describe this,” he said, “as kind of a shot across the bow.” And, he said, the measure as it exists could potentially drive a wedge in the Netanyahu coalition between the prime minister and Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, if the latter do not feel their leader is sufficiently supportive.

Thus far, though, the measure is broadly understood as more significant for its symbolism and its potential. “I think it was an........

© New Republic