Israel’s security cabinet has approved a set of administrative changes affecting day-to-day governance and law enforcement in the territories. Predictably, the response has been split between celebration and outrage. Supporters have hailed the measures as “de facto annexation.” Critics have denounced them as exactly the same. Both camps are wrong.

Those who see the changes as a step toward extending Israeli sovereignty through “de facto annexation” misunderstand the concept and legal meaning of annexation, and misread the nature of these administrative actions. By the same token, those who cast the measures as attempts to annex territory in violation of Israel’s commitments to the Palestinians and its international legal obligations similarly fail to grasp their purpose.

When an Israeli action is met with equal amounts of misplaced political celebration and reflexive international criticism, it is worth asking whether political framing has overtaken sober analysis. A number of legal and political factors therefore need to be clarified.

Israel has neither annexed nor extended its sovereignty to Judea, Samaria and Gaza – nor can it do so. Under the Oslo Accords, Israel agreed, and remains obligated, to administer those parts of the territories placed under its control and jurisdiction. Similarly, the Palestinian Authority is obligated to govern and administer those areas placed under its control. This framework was agreed to by Israel and the Palestinian leadership until a permanent-status agreement is finalized.

Pending such an agreement, both sides committed not to take unilateral steps that would change the status of the territories. This includes unilateral Israeli action, as well as Palestinian efforts in the UN and elsewhere to declare statehood outside the negotiating framework.

The Oslo Accords and related instruments were witnessed by international leaders, including the presidents of the United States and the Russian Federation, as well as the leaders of Egypt, Jordan, Norway, and the European Union. They were also endorsed in several UN resolutions. Additional agreed memoranda and protocols govern specific issues, including day-to-day arrangements in Hebron, property maintenance and upkeep, and municipal governance.

In the territory under its administration, Israel is duty-bound to ensure public order and to prevent arbitrary obstructions – whether by Israeli or Palestinian residents, or by local municipal and other authorities – that disrupt day-to-day life.

Streamlining legal and administrative procedures, improving planning and oversight, ensuring transparent property purchase and registration, and protecting archaeological sites are all part of Israel’s responsibilities under the existing framework. Respect for private property in the territories, including in the context of Israel’s settlement policies, was affirmed in 2012 by an expert, government-established legal commission headed by Supreme Court Justice Edmond Levy, which sought to protect private ownership and regulate settlement activity.

At the same time, nothing prevents private, legitimate, and transparent property transactions conducted lawfully by willing parties. In that context, the decision to enable lawful land transactions and not to apply in the territories a distinctly discriminatory and antisemitic Jordanian-era law that barred the sale of land to Jews cannot reasonably be described as “de facto annexation.”

In that context, the decision not to apply in the territories a Jordanian-era law that barred the sale of land to Jews – and to enable lawful land transactions – cannot reasonably be described as “de facto annexation.”

Thus, the administrative measures decided upon by Israel’s cabinet bear no relation whatsoever to annexation. Annexation is a formal governmental act; it cannot be carried out quietly, “creepingly,” or in secret through administrative adjustments.

There may well be politicians and politically motivated organizations welcoming the measures, or condemning them, for partisan reasons. But presenting these steps as “de facto annexation” is simply inaccurate. If an Israeli government were to decide to annex territory, it would have to do it openly, through negotiation with its neighbors and not through political machinations and manipulation.

Exaggerated condemnations by international leaders have relied on selective and misleading framing. They accuse Israel of annexation without engaging seriously with the nature of the measures themselves.

In this context, the condemnation by UN Secretary-General António Guterres calling for the reversal of these measures reflects extreme bias and a superficial reading of the facts and legal framework underlying them.

It is hypocritical to say the least, and indicative of utter ignorance on his part.

Furthermore, Secretary General Guterres’s call for a “negotiated two-State solution in line with international law” is no less revealing.

Guterres is well aware – but appears to ignore – that Israel has repeatedly sought to return to negotiations with the Palestinian leadership and to complete the permanent-status talks envisioned in the 1993-95 Oslo Accords. The Palestinian leadership, however, has consistently rejected Israel’s offers while inciting, financing, encouraging, and glorifying terrorism.

This includes support for the Hamas massacre of October 7, 2023 – the murder of more than 1,000 Israelis and foreign nationals, the torture of civilians, and the abduction of more than 200 hostages. Secretary-General Guterres hesitatingly condemned the attack while shockingly expressing justification for the Hamas actions.

Against this background, his insistence on repeating the worn-out formula of a “two-state solution” without acknowledging the consistent refusal of the Palestinian leadership to reach such an agreement reflects the shallow and irresponsible mindset that guides his actions and public statements.

As an international official, the Secretary-General should be reminded that the “UN Charter and Staff Rules” require senior officials to act with impartiality. His consistently slanted statements, which single out and condemn Israel while disregarding Palestinian violations and incitement, undermine the integrity of his office – and any last shreds of credibility that the United Nations may still have.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)