Aa
  • Read, Watch, Listen
  • TJI Series
  • Community Action
  • Events
  • Zedi
Follow us and continue the conversation
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube
Test yourself with the TJI Quiz!

Adjust size of text

Aa

Follow us and continue the conversation

  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube

Your saved articles

You haven't saved any articles

What are you looking for?

Original reporting, insightful analysis and diverse views, delivered straight to your inbox

  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube
Your support fuels our mission to inform, entertain and inspire.

The Jewish Independent is bound by the Standards of Practice of the Australian Press Council. If you believe the Standards may have been breached, you may approach The Jewish Independent or make a complaint to the Australian Press Council in writing at www.presscouncil.org.au. The Council may also be contacted on 1800 025 712.

  • Our Story
  • Contact us
  • Our Team
  • Support us
  • Guidelines
  • Pitch your idea
  • Republishing us
  • Community Action
  • Our Awards
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube
Aboriginal FlagTorres Strait Islanders Flag

The Jewish Independent acknowledges Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the Traditional Owners and Custodians of Country throughout Australia. We pay our respects to Elders past and present, and strive to honour their rich history of storytelling in our work and mission.

© The Jewish Independent 2026All Rights Reserved
Website design and development by Your Creative, MelbourneTerms & ConditionsPrivacy Policy
HomeRead, Watch, ListenIsrael
ExplainerIsrael

New land laws enable Israel to effectively annexe West Bank

Israel's government has advanced a series of legal, administrative and political steps in the West Bank that critics argue collectively amount to movement toward de facto annexation, drawing strong responses internationally.
Shahar Burla
Print this
settlement west bank

The settlement of Eli in Binyamin in the West Bank (Israel Policy Forum)

Published: 19 February 2026

Last updated: 19 February 2026

In the last two weeks Israel’s government has advanced a cluster of legal, administrative and political steps in the West Bank that critics say collectively amount to movement toward de facto annexation — even without a formal sovereignty declaration.

The measures span land registration, property acquisition, settlement governance, legislative signalling and ideological positioning within the governing coalition, while drawing strong responses internationally, including caution from Washington and sharp condemnation from Arab states.

Here’s how the pieces fit together.

What is the new land registration regulation and why is it raising annexation concerns?

Israel’s cabinet has approved the resumption of land regulation in the West Bank for the first time since 1967, a bureaucratic step with far-reaching political and legal implications.

Land regulation refers to the formal process of mapping land, reviewing ownership claims and recording property rights in an official land registry. Under the new resolution, the process will focus on Area C, roughly 60% of the West Bank under full Israeli civil and military control.

A dedicated Regulation Authority is set to be established within the Justice Ministry to oversee implementation, while the Survey of Israel, under the Housing and Construction Ministry, will handle mapping and parcel division.

Once ownership is recorded, registry status becomes legally final and extremely difficult to challenge. Where no ownership claim is filed, or where documentation is deemed insufficient, land may be classified as state land, effectively transferring it to Israeli state control.

Historically, land registration began under the British Mandate and continued during Jordanian rule but was only about one-third completed before Israel froze the process by military order in 1967. The current decision effectively restarts that system under Israeli administrative authority.

The government has allocated NIS 244 million (approx. AUD $111 million) for the process between 2026–2030 and authorised 35 new positions across ministries.

However, the scale is vast: registering a single plot could take at least 18 months, and completing registration across Area C could take decades. The plan nevertheless sets a target of registering 15% of unregistered land within five years.

Critics argue the mechanism creates a legal infrastructure for annexation, shifting land into Israeli registries and enabling its allocation for settlements or infrastructure. Supporters frame it as administrative clarification of property rights long left unresolved.

How are property acquisition and settlement governance rules changing?

Alongside registration reforms, the government has approved measures expanding how Israelis can acquire land across the West Bank. Previously, Israelis could typically purchase land from Palestinians only via locally registered companies. The new framework allows direct private purchasing.

Key changes include:

  • Israelis can buy land in their own name
  • Jordanian-era restrictions on non-Muslim property purchases have been repealed
  • Transaction licensing requirements have been removed
  • Previously classified land registries will be opened to the public

Ministers said the steps remove “decades-old barriers” and normalise land markets. Critics say they make Palestinian land more accessible to settlement actors. 

Meanwhile, Israeli enforcement powers have been expanded into Areas A and B in specific domains such as water violations, environmental hazards and archaeological protections. Under the Oslo II framework, those areas fall under Palestinian civil control (with varying security arrangements). Critics say the new enforcement reach erodes that governance balance; ministers argue it addresses cross-territorial regulatory concerns.

Taken together, land registration, private acquisition, planning authority and enforcement expansion, analysts say the measures deepen Israeli civilian and legal control beyond military occupation alone.

Where does Washington stand and how does that sit with settlement expansion?

Despite early speculation that a second Trump presidency might support Israeli sovereignty moves, recent signals from Washington suggest caution. Asked about the latest Israeli cabinet decisions, President Donald Trump said bluntly: “I am against annexation.”

In a February 10 interview with Axios, he added: “We have enough things to think about now. We don’t need to be dealing with the West Bank.” The remarks indicate the US is not currently prepared to endorse formal annexation, which would entail extending Israeli law and sovereignty over the territory.

That position sits alongside continued settlement expansion on the ground. A February report by Peace Now found Israel’s Higher Planning Council advanced 27,941 housing units for approval in 2025, more than double the previous annual record.

Israel has also moved forward on development in the E1 corridor east of Jerusalem, long viewed internationally as a red-line area because construction there would effectively bisect the West Bank, severing territorial contiguity between Ramallah and Bethlehem.

Tenders have recently been issued for more than 3,000 housing units in the zone. On the legislative front, the Knesset has given preliminary approval to a bill proposing Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank, a symbolic but politically indicative step that has not yet become law.

The result is a widening gap: US opposition to formal annexation alongside Israeli administrative and settlement moves that critics say entrench it in practice.

What ideological direction is emerging inside the Israeli government?

Beyond administrative policy, annexation debates are increasingly shaped by explicit political doctrine within the governing coalition. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who also serves as a minister within the Defence Ministry, recently outlined what he called a “Settlement Plan for 2030” at a Religious Zionism party conference framed as marking a “settlement revolution.”

He said a future Israeli government should impose sovereignty over the West Bank and “encourage the migration” of Palestinians from the territory.  “In the long term, there is no other solution,” he said, adding he would seek to annul the Oslo Accords.

Conference materials referenced plans to establish dozens of new communities, expand agricultural settlement farms and strengthen the Jewish presence across the territory. The remarks speak to the demographic dimension of annexation, not just control of land, but of population balance.

They come amid heightened scrutiny of settler activity since October 7, including documented cases in which Palestinian rural communities have left areas following sustained harassment and intimidation by settlers.

Monitoring groups describe patterns involving outpost expansion, threats and pressure on grazing communities. Israeli authorities have disputed some accounts while investigating specific incidents.

How has the international community responded?

The latest Israeli measures have drawn sharp condemnation from Palestinian leadership and a bloc of Arab and Muslim-majority states. The Palestinian presidency described the policies as “a de facto annexation of occupied Palestinian territory” designed to entrench control through settlement expansion.

The Palestinian Authority has called for UN and US intervention.

In a joint statement, the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the UAE, Qatar, Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey said the steps were aimed at:

  • Imposing unlawful Israeli sovereignty
  • Entrenching settlement activity
  • Creating a new legal reality in the West Bank
  • Accelerating annexation
  • Increasing the risk of Palestinian displacement

They called on the international community to pressure Israel to halt the measures. Palestinian factions responded differently in tone: the PA pursued diplomatic channels, while Hamas called for escalation and urged Arab states to sever ties with Israel.

Critics also argue the policies undermine past interim agreements, including the 1997 Hebron Protocol, which set governance arrangements in sensitive parts of the territory.

No single decision constitutes formal annexation. But taken together, land registration, property liberalisation, settlement planning shifts, sovereignty legislation, ideological doctrine and demographic rhetoric — critics say Israel is constructing the administrative, legal and political scaffolding of annexation in practice.

Supporters counter that the steps reflect regulatory reform, property clarification and security-driven governance within territories already under Israeli control.

The annexation debate, in other words, is no longer only about a declaration, but about the cumulative impact of policy on the ground.

You might also like
  • Palestinians disillusioned with Hamas and armed struggle: new survey
    Shahar Burla
  • Netanyahu rejects Trump’s Gaza plan, testing US influence in the region
    Shahar Burla
  • Violence escalates as Iran breakthrough remains elusive
    Shahar Burla
logomark.67a07ee3
We believe in the free flow of information

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, by using our Creative Commons licence

You might also like

    altalena
    Israel Votes 2026OpinionIsrael

    The Altalena should be a warning, not a political weapon

    Shahar Burla 1
    Woman with land and houses behind her
    NewsAustralia

    Australia to increase sanctions against West Bank settlements

    Deborah Stone 2
    Netanyahu
    Israel Hamas WarFeatureIsrael

    New evidence Netanyahu was warned about October 7

    Shahar Burla 2

About the author

Shahar Burla

Shahar Burla

Dr Shahar Burla is a Sydney-based researcher, lecturer and Contributing Editor of TJI. Shahar holds a Master’s degree in political science from Hebrew University and a PhD in political science from Bar-Ilan University. He is the author of Political Imagination in the Diaspora: The Construction of a Pro-Israeli Narrative (2013) and co-editor of Australia and Israel: A Diasporic, Cultural and Political Relationship (2015).

More from the author

FeatureIsrael

New evidence Netanyahu was warned about October 7

OpinionIsrael

The Altalena should be a warning, not a political weapon

AnalysisIsrael

Who is Ofer Winter and could he upset Netanyahu’s election?

AnalysisIsrael

Bennett’s balancing act: can he win over the right without losing the centre?

Comments

No comments on this article yet. Be the first to add your thoughts.