Israel’s decision to resume land registration in Judea and Samaria is not annexation or a breach of international law, but a lawful administrative measure to restore equality, transparency, and order after years of Palestinian Authority violations ignored by the international community.

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'eNW27zb5QzNAvKGEi-4XcA',sig:'buitVP3bDRs5yqPjvYPp6WHhXy67ev24_39iHFAvEZY=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'2261832457',caption: false ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

The international outcry that followed Israel’s recent decision to resume land registration procedures in Judea and Samaria is a case study in selective outrage. Foreign media outlets and diplomats rushed to label the decision a “gross violation of international law,” even as they ignored the facts on the ground and the legal reality of what Israel actually approved.

The decision in question is not a political move, a sovereignty declaration, or an annexation by stealth. It is an administrative measure in civil and property law, designed to restore transparency, equality, and legal order in a domain that has long been distorted by discrimination, secrecy, and systematic violations of binding agreements. The real question, therefore, is not why Israel acted now, but why the international community has tolerated years of unilateral and illegal actions by the Palestinian Authority without consequence.

For years, the Palestinian Authority has openly violated its commitments under the agreements governing Judea and Samaria, particularly in Area C. It is currently advancing illegal land registration procedures there, in direct breach of existing accords, while promoting a campaign of unilateral land seizure that undermines any possibility of orderly governance. No sovereign state would accept such conduct on territory whose status is subject to negotiation. Yet when Israel responds by enforcing order and legality, it is accused of provocation.

At the core of the controversy lies a legal distortion inherited from Jordanian rule. Under Jordanian law, land ownership and acquisition in Judea and Samaria were governed by discriminatory provisions that barred Jews and, in fact, anyone who was not Arab, including Americans and Europeans, from purchasing property. This regime was compounded by the confidentiality of land registries, which concealed ownership, enabled fraud, and entrenched ethnic exclusion. Israel’s decision corrects that distortion. It establishes equality in real estate acquisition, removes secrecy from the land registry, and enables transparent procedures to clarify ownership and resolve disputes. In any other country, abolishing a racially discriminatory legal framework would be praised as a step toward justice. In Israel’s case, it is condemned.

The hypocrisy becomes impossible to ignore when one considers the identity of Israel’s loudest accuser. The Palestinian Authority, which has led the diplomatic assault against the Cabinet’s decision, maintains the death penalty for Palestinians who sell land to Jews. This is not a rhetorical exaggeration; it is codified policy. Individuals have been imprisoned, tortured, and in some cases killed for engaging in what would be a routine private transaction anywhere else in the world. Yet the same international actors who accuse Israel of violating human rights remain silent in the face of a system that criminalizes land sales to Jews.

The decision also cannot be separated from the broader pattern of Palestinian Authority violations on the ground. These include systematic destruction of Jewish holy and archaeological sites, widespread illegal construction, environmental hazards such as waste dumping and water diversion, and the erasure of historical heritage. Much of this activity takes place in clear violation of existing agreements and, in a bitter irony, is often funded by the European Union, whose officials simultaneously profess unwavering commitment to those same agreements.

Claims that Israel’s decision alters sovereignty or endangers a “sensitive status quo” collapse under scrutiny. No change in territorial status has been declared, and no political boundary has been redrawn. What has been approved is a legal mechanism to bring order to land registration, prevent unilateral faits accomplis, and restore the rule of law. Land registration is not annexation; it is the foundation of lawful governance. Transparency protects rights. Ambiguity enables coercion.

Warnings from Brussels about risks to religious sites ring hollow when Jewish holy sites are being bulldozed, desecrated, torched, and erased, from Joshua’s Altar on Mount Ebal to repeated attacks on Joseph’s Tomb. These are documented facts, not theoretical concerns. The true threat to the status quo is not legal transparency, but systematic lawlessness rewarded by international silence.

What ultimately undermines international law is not Israel’s insistence on equality, transparency, and compliance with agreements. It is the refusal to hold the Palestinian Authority accountable while condemning Israel for responding to sustained violations. Agreements cannot bind only one side. Law cannot apply selectively. Equality cannot be delegitimized when it benefits Jews.

If restoring equality before the law and enforcing transparent land registration are branded violations, then the problem lies not with Israel, but with an international system that has lost the ability to distinguish between law and politics, equality and discrimination, enforcement and aggression.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)