Israel’s Settlement Expansion in the West Bank

On February 15–16, 2026, the Israeli government approved a new policy to register large areas of the occupied West Bank as “state property,” marking the first formal land registration process since 1967. The decision, advanced by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, Justice Minister Yariv Levin, and Defense Minister Israel Katz, revives the “settlement of land title” procedures that had been frozen for nearly six decades. The measure allows Israeli authorities to designate specific areas for registration, requiring claimants to prove ownership through documentation that many Palestinians lack due to decades of conflict and displacement.

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that the policy was intended to clarify property rights and address alleged unlawful land registration by the Palestinian Authority. However, the Palestinian Authority condemned the move as a grave escalation and a violation of international law amounting to de facto annexation, urging the United Nations and the United States to intervene. Hamas described the decision as an illegitimate attempt to Judaize occupied land and dispossess Palestinians.

The new policy applies primarily to Area C, which constitutes about 60 percent of the West Bank and remains under full Israeli military and administrative control. More than 300,000 Palestinians live in this area, alongside over 700,000 Israeli settlers across the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israeli rights groups, including Peace Now and Bimkom, warned that the process could result in Israel taking control of up to 83 percent of Area C, describing it as a “mega land grab” and a bureaucratic mechanism for full annexation.

The government’s decision also established a dedicated administrative unit and allocated funds under the 2026 budget to register 15 percent of unregistered West Bank land within four years. The Israeli Supreme Court recently dismissed petitions against the policy as premature, allowing implementation to proceed.

International reaction was swift and widespread. The United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres called the measure destabilizing and unlawful, urging Israel to reverse it. The European Union described the move as a new escalation that undermines the two-state solution. Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Pakistan issued statements condemning the decision as a violation of international law and a threat to regional stability. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation labeled the policy a colonial measure targeting Palestinian existence and sovereignty.

Parallel to the registration policy, Israel advanced a new housing plan near Jerusalem to construct 2,570 settlement units in an area connecting the Geva Binyamin and Neve Yaakov settlements, effectively expanding Jerusalem’s boundaries for the first time since 1967. Palestinian officials and rights groups described the plan as disguised annexation, warning it would displace Palestinians and alter the city’s demographic balance.

The developments occurred amid ongoing violence in Gaza and the West Bank. On February 16, Israeli airstrikes in Gaza killed at least 11 people, while the Israel Defense Forces claimed to be responding to ceasefire violations by Hamas. The strikes came as the United States prepared to convene the “Board of Peace” in Washington to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction and Hamas’s disarmament. Israeli Cabinet Secretary Yossi Fuchs later confirmed that Israel would give Hamas a 60-day deadline to disarm before resuming full-scale military operations.

The Israeli government’s decision to register West Bank land as state property represents a structural shift in the administration of occupied territory, transforming temporary military control into a civilian legal framework that consolidates sovereignty claims. By transferring authority from the military to civilian agencies, Israel effectively normalizes its governance over occupied land, a hallmark of annexation under international law. The move undermines the Oslo Accords’ division of the West Bank into Areas A, B, and C, eroding the Palestinian Authority’s jurisdiction and diminishing prospects for a negotiated two-state solution.

The policy’s implementation mechanisms, requiring proof of ownership through historical documentation, create a legal environment in which most Palestinian claims are likely to fail. This bureaucratic approach enables Israel to expand control without overt military action, embedding annexation within administrative processes. The establishment of a dedicated registration unit and budgetary allocation signals institutional commitment to long-term territorial integration.

International condemnation underscores the geopolitical ramifications. The unified response from Arab states, the European Union, and the United Nations reflects a rare convergence of diplomatic positions against Israeli policy. This alignment could revive multilateral pressure mechanisms, including potential UN Security Council deliberations or renewed debates over sanctions and recognition of Palestinian statehood. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation’s framing of the policy as colonialism may also mobilize broader support among Muslim-majority nations, potentially influencing energy and trade relations with Western states that maintain close ties to Israel.

The new housing plan near Jerusalem compounds the strategic impact by physically linking settlements and extending Israeli urban infrastructure into occupied territory. This spatial integration blurs the boundary between Israel and the West Bank, complicating any future territorial partition. The plan’s focus on ultra-Orthodox communities suggests a demographic strategy to entrench Israeli presence in contested zones.

The timing of these measures, coinciding with ongoing Gaza ceasefire violations and U.S.-brokered reconstruction efforts, indicates a dual-track Israeli strategy: consolidating control in the West Bank while maintaining military leverage in Gaza. The 60-day disarmament ultimatum to Hamas, coordinated with Washington, reflects continued U.S.-Israeli alignment on security objectives despite international criticism of settlement expansion. This linkage between territorial policy and military posture demonstrates how Israel integrates legal, administrative, and coercive tools to shape the post-conflict regional order.

For great power competition, the development tests the credibility of U.S. diplomacy and European influence in the Middle East. Washington’s muted response contrasts with its leadership of the Gaza reconstruction initiative, suggesting selective engagement that may erode its standing among Arab partners. European states, while vocal in condemnation, lack enforcement mechanisms, highlighting the limits of normative power in the absence of strategic leverage.

In intelligence terms, the policy’s implementation will likely involve expanded Israeli surveillance and cadastral mapping operations in Area C, potentially supported by advanced geospatial technologies. These activities could intersect with cyber and data governance issues as Israel digitizes land records and integrates them into national systems. The resulting data infrastructure would further institutionalize control and complicate future restitution or negotiation processes.

Overall, the land registration initiative represents a decisive step toward irreversible territorial integration of the West Bank into Israel’s administrative and legal system. It signals a long-term strategic intent to redefine borders unilaterally, reshape demographic realities, and constrain diplomatic pathways to Palestinian sovereignty.

- State of Israel

- Palestinian Authority

- Hamas

- United Nations

- European Union

- Arab states (Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan)

- United States