The West Bank has long been the centre of Israeli colonialist dreams, serving as both a geographic and political battleground between settler violence and Palestinian self-defence measures.
Despite international opposition, successive Israeli governments expanded control through settler construction projects, military orders, and administrative measures that have reshaped the occupied Palestinian land.
Israeli control of the West Bank developed into a system of permanent territorial control following its military occupation, with settlements and Israeli infrastructure splitting Palestinian communities from one another.
This process accelerated under “Israel’s” current regime, with Finance Minister and former settlement administrator Bezalel Smotrich playing a key role in advancing policies aimed at annexing the occupied West Bank.
Smotrich openly called for the extension of Israeli sovereignty over the territory and oversaw the transfer of key administrative powers over settlements from military authorities to settler government bodies.
These measures are a move toward formal annexation, transforming what has long been considered de facto control into a permanent system of settler governance.
The roots of this ongoing process extend back to the aftermath of the 1967 war, when Israeli political and military planners began formulating strategies for maintaining long-term control over the occupied territory.
The decades-long annexation process
While the West Bank is officially under Palestinian rule, “Israel” has maintained de facto control over the plot of land since its military seizure in 1967.
Following the 1967 war, Israeli politicians were faced with two options, the first being the Jordanian option, transferring control of most of the West Bank to Jordan under King Hussein bin Talal, or the Palestine option, which declared that the Palestinians would get autonomy or an independent state.
Israeli politicians opted for the latter.
“Israel” continued to invest resources into gaining more land in the Palestinian territories by establishing and expanding the settlements both by means of land grabbing and increasing the population of these sites, under the Allon Plan doctrine.
The Allon Plan indicated that Israeli sovereignty over a major part of the occupied Palestinian territories was essential for “Israel’s” defence and survival.
Yigal Allon, of whom the doctrine was named, stated following the 1967 war that the last thing “Israel” should do is “return one inch of the West Bank” back to the Jordanians who ruled over the land until the war.
“We must not view Hussein as existing forever – today it is Hussein, but tomorrow it is [Suleiman] Nabulsi, and the day after that some Syrian will take hold of them and following that they will make a defence pact with the Soviet Union and China and we’ll find ourselves in a much more difficult position,” Allon said. “We are talking about a matter that is not forever, and we are placing it on a phenomenon that is flesh and blood, and perhaps will remain for a maximum of 60 years, if he does not get shot before that.”
He added that he was “taking the maximum possibility. Not a canton, not an autonomous region, but an independent Arab state agreed on between them and us in an enclave surrounded by Israeli territory – independent even in its foreign policy.”
This has largely been the dynamic of the West Bank under occupied skies; Palestinian natives would be able to elect an administrative body, but the Israeli occupation remains in control of public order, meaning that Palestinians will continue to be treated as second-class citizens when compared with the Zionist settlers.
Settlements, which the UN rightfully called colonies in a 1979 bulletin, quickly sprang up. The bulletin noted a plan formulated by the Jewish Agency and the Zionist Organisation, which noted that its objectives over a 20-year period (1975-1995) were to inhabit the Jordan Rift with at least 8,000 “Israelis” by 1995 and to “exploit the natural resources of the area – mainly land, water and climatic conditions – for the benefit of the Israeli colonies.”
“Israel” continues to use complex legal and bureaucratic procedures to take control of the land in the West Bank, seizing it by military needs or claiming allegedly undeclared land to belong to “Israel”.
After the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, the Palestinian Authority was established as a transitional governing body tasked with managing areas of the West Bank and Gaza.
However, instead of ending the Israeli occupation of the land, the West Bank was split into three administrative zones, Area A, B, and C.
When the Oslo II Accord was signed in 1995, Area A was placed under full Palestinian civil and security control, while Area B was placed under Palestinian civil administration with “Israel” maintaining overriding security authority. Area C, which comprises approximately 60% of the West Bank, remained under full Israeli civil and military control. This area included the majority of the territory’s natural resources, open land, strategic areas, and all Israeli settlements outside occupied East Jerusalem.
Although the agreement described Area C as a temporary arrangement pending final status negotiations, control over the territory was never transferred. Instead, successive Israeli governments continued expanding settlements, developing infrastructure connecting them to “Israel,” and restricting Palestinian construction through military orders and planning regulations.
The settlement movement continued to grow throughout the Oslo period despite the framework being presented internationally as a pathway toward Palestinian statehood. Per European Union figures, the settler population in the occupied West Bank more than doubled between the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 and the mid-2010s.
The structure created by Oslo allowed the Palestinian Authority to administer population centres while leaving control over borders, airspace, security, movement, and most of the territory in the hands of the Israeli occupation.
This transformed the occupation from direct military administration over the entire population into a fragmented system where Palestinian authorities managed civilian affairs while “Israel” retained control over the wider territory.
This arrangement became increasingly evident through the expansion of Area C settlements, military zones, bypass roads, and restrictions on Palestinian development. Rather than serving as a transitional phase toward full Palestinian sovereignty, the division of the West Bank created a framework through which “Israel” could maintain control over the territory while allowing limited Palestinian self-administration.
The system accelerated in recent years, as Israeli politicians openly advocated for formal annexation and the extension of civilian authority over settlements.
“Israel” has been committed to officially annexing the Palestinian land in recent years, accelerating the already rapid settler movement there alongside the violence against Palestinians.
Geographic importance of the West Bank
The West Bank is a landlocked plot of about 5,660 km², mainly comprised of a generally rugged mountainous terrain. Its elevation spans between the Dead Sea shoreline at -408 m and the highest point, Mount Nabi Yunis, at 1,030m above sea level.
Geographically, its hills and mountains give it strategic importance, as they allow whoever controls them to command the high ground of the coastal plain on the western ridge and the Jordan valley to the east.
Israeli regime officials have long linked the need to take over the West Bank for the sake of security needs. Israeli War Minister Israel Katz said previously that, “The renewal of the land settlement in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) is an essential security-administrative move designed to ensure control, enforcement, and full freedom of action by the State of Israel in the territory.”
“Regulating the land prevents the establishment of unilateral facts, reduces illegal takeover attempts, and harms terrorist infrastructures that undermine stability and security,” the Israeli politician said. “This is a necessary step to create operational and legal certainty, allowing the IDF and the defence establishment to act with determination to protect Israeli citizens and safeguard national interests.”
The Jerusalem Centre for Security and Foreign Affairs noted that despite its small size, the West Bank is situated adjacent to where a majority of the Israeli settlers and the occupation’s industrial capacity are located.
It notes that a military force located in commanding positions along the West Bank could show itself to pose a major military threat to “Israel,” crippling or bringing the occupation’s economic life to a standstill.
The West Bank is relatively small, covering 2,123 square miles (5,500 square kilometres), but it is situated immediately adjacent to the Israeli coastal plain where more than 70 per cent of Israel’s population and 80 per cent of its industrial capacity are located.
“Incapacitating and overrunning the coastal plain would terminate Israel’s very existence,” the institution wrote. “This is the primary factor affecting the strategic importance of the West Bank for Israel from a military perspective.”
The annexation of the West Bank allows the Israelis the ability to overlook the western plain, making a potential Resistance movement harder, especially if a future operation seeks to link the West Bank with Gaza’s resistance.
Actors behind the land grab
The main force paving the way for Israeli annexation of the West Bank is the violent settlers who abuse and bully Palestinians.
These settlers are often armed, work in packs, and have some member of the IOF guarding their movements in case a Palestinian dares to protect themselves or their families.
Plans to take over the land for military means are being hidden behind the language of religious and historical rights, as is often the case when it comes to Israeli political decisions. Settlers see the abuse of Palestinians as a Divine right they have to let loose on whichever obstacle is in their way.
The use of Israeli settlers rather than IOF personnel directly in the usurping of Palestinian land in the West Bank follows in line with “Israel’s” war tactics. Tel Aviv, before launching an aggressive war on whoever they deem to be adversaries, conducts immense diplomatic, political, and armed pressure campaigns until the other party responds and takes that as justification for a full-blown military operation, which can be deemed to be carried out in self-defence.
The West Bank is a fuse waiting to burn out, as Israeli politicians give settlers free rein to take over land violently stolen from Palestinians, living on their farms and taking their livestock as treasures of a successful colonial campaign.
B’tselem, in a 2021 report, stated that “settlements for all intents and purposes, which were built without formal authorisation by the government and without plans that enable construction in them – receive support from the Israeli authorities and remain standing. Israel has ordered the military to defend the outposts or paid for their security, as well as paved roads and laid down water and electricity infrastructure for most of them.”
We can see this dynamic plainly throughout this month, as a surge in settler attacks intensified fears that violence is being used to accelerate the annexation process.
The most recent of which comes from the Palestinian village of Tell, west of Nablus, wherein four Palestinians were martyred as they attempted to defend their land from the zionist colonizers.
Settler attacks spread to nearby Palestinian communities shortly after, including assaults on villages and the burning of mosques, while Israeli forces launched widespread military operations and arrests across the West Bank.
The colonialist nature of these events can be summed up as such: settler violence creates instability on the ground, forcing Palestinians to defend their communities, and the resulting confrontation is then used to justify expanded military intervention and further restrictions on Palestinian movement by transferring their land into military outposts or security zones.
The United Nations documented that settler attacks in recent weeks have increasingly targeted not only individuals but also agricultural land, water systems, electricity infrastructure, and other resources essential to Palestinian livelihoods.
From the Allon Plan after the 1967 war to the present-day policies of Israeli actors like Smotrich, the West Bank has remained central to Israeli occupation plans. The land’s geographic importance, settlement expansion, and political fragmentation made it a focal point of “Israel’s” regional aggression campaign.
