Smotrich’s Push for West Bank Annexation

It’s the point of no return in the long and sordid history of this protracted Israeli-Palestinian conflict: last week, Israel’s far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, issued an edict to prepare the ground for annexation settlements within the occupied West Bank. The appeal by Smotrich to “prepare the necessary infrastructure for applying sovereignty” over these settlements is not only a magnificent political aspiration but also more broadly, an ideological commitment to the expansion of Israeli control over seriously contested and historically tension-prone territories.

This represents a tide in Israeli politics that, insofar as right-wing factions have risen to power in governing roles, also represents a generally rightist trend. His religious Zionist party has been especially vociferous about their support for settlements and Israel’s continued expansion over the West Bank. Such an approach is a decisive challenge in terms of future possibility for peace talk as well as the sustainability of the two-state solution, seen for years as the most feasible approach to resolve the conflict.

The annexation of West Bank settlements is considered to be a highly contentious issue, even illegal under international law. In fact, this is banned by the Fourth Geneva Convention, as “the occupying power may not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” There are a number of United Nations resolutions that have adopted this principle. This move by Israel in marching ahead on annexation plans will leave it isolated in the international world and hotting the important allies who have always defended the right of Israel to defend itself but opposed any single unilateral step that undermines the peace process.

This timing is particularly revealing given that it comes at a time when the dynamics of geopolitics are changing and, by the accounts of some analysts, under certain administrations of the United States, the environment is more propitious for Israel. Reference to Donald Trump’s electoral victory as “a significant opportunity for Israel” underlines the strategic calculus in exploiting a perceived lightness from Washington on settlement policies. It raised the ethical questions when using the political usage elsewhere with policy changes that can further flare up existing tensions in an already explosive region. His policy may help fire that burning flame of current fraught.

Annexation implications will not only be legal and diplomatic risks but also for regional stability. The authority of the Palestinians, undermined by the split in it at home and by pressures from the outside, could easily lose the small influence left it has if Israel will unilaterally annex a part of the West Bank. It will definitely cause a new wave of uproar among Palestinians and generate new waves of violence, making dialogue or reconciliation impossible.

Moreover, Smotrich’s position as finance minister puts him in a peculiar position of power in shaping settlement policy and resource allocation. This approach may involve expanding settlement infrastructure at the same time as sabotaging the economic viability of the Palestinian communities. This will simply serve to enlarge the inequalities already present and will only deepen anger; thus, it can only make it even harder to establish any form of lasting peace.

This important and sensitive piece, however, is that the Smotrich announcement makes clear it intends to enforce annexation but remains unclear how that would politically take place within the country of Israel. The Israeli public does have differences in opinion on settlement and annexation, especially how that would impact national security and international affairs. They must deal with the fissures within the country but also with international threats from alliance states who may be against such actions imposed unilaterally.

Bezalel Smotrich’s campaign for annexing the West Bank marks a decisive moment in Israeli politics and a deeper conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. It is consonant with the desires of more extreme-right elements in Israel, but the stakes are much higher, including eroding hopes of peace, adding fuel to animosity towards Palestinian interlocutors, and complicating relations with critical international allies. This development is going to be marked by careful scrutiny and diplomatic engagement on this contentious issue as it will be ushered towards a sustainable solution that will respect the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.