The debate over the fate of Palestine has entered yet another turbulent chapter. Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has laid out a plan that, if implemented, would apply Israeli sovereignty over roughly 82 per cent of the West Bank. The announcement has stirred outrage across the Middle East and beyond, reviving long-standing disputes over land, rights, and the possibility of peace. To appreciate the significance of this proposal, one must understand the historical context, the political motivations behind it, and the implications it holds for both Palestinians and the wider international community.
 |
| West Bank and Israel |
The West Bank, along with Gaza and East Jerusalem, has long been recognised by much of the international community as the territory that would form a future Palestinian state. This understanding stems from the United Nations resolutions following the 1967 Six-Day War, when Israel occupied these areas. For decades, international law has been clear: the West Bank is considered occupied territory, and settlements established there are deemed illegal.
Yet, over time, Israeli settlement activity has expanded relentlessly, creating a patchwork of communities connected by roads, infrastructure, and security outposts. What was once envisaged as a contiguous Palestinian state has been sliced into fragments. Each new settlement makes the prospect of territorial compromise more remote. The current proposal to annex most of the West Bank threatens to cement this fragmentation permanently.
Smotrich’s plan is radical in its scope. It does not call for piecemeal annexation or gradual legal changes but instead for sweeping sovereignty over the majority of the West Bank. The intention, as he himself stated, is to secure the maximum amount of land with the minimum number of Palestinians. In practice, this would mean absorbing most of the territory into Israel while leaving six Palestinian population centres — Ramallah, Nablus, Jenin, Tulkarem, Jericho, and Hebron — as isolated enclaves. These enclaves would have no real control over borders, resources, or movement, and would remain dependent on Israel’s security and economic structures.
Supporters of the plan argue that it resolves what they view as the persistent threat of a Palestinian state emerging in Israel’s “heartland.” To them, annexation is not only a matter of security but of ideology: a fulfilment of a biblical claim to the land. By incorporating the majority of the West Bank, Israel would eliminate any future negotiation over sovereignty in these areas.
From the Palestinian perspective, this proposal represents the culmination of decades of systematic dispossession. The promise of statehood has been repeatedly deferred, undermined, and chipped away by successive Israeli governments. What Smotrich offers is not autonomy but confinement. The six Palestinian enclaves would amount to disconnected islands, surrounded by Israeli-controlled territory, their residents lacking sovereignty in any meaningful sense.
This echoes past colonial practices where indigenous populations were pushed into reservations or bantustans, nominally self-governing but in reality subjugated. Palestinians fear that such a model would strip them of their political aspirations and entrench their status as a people without a state. The language of “maximum land with minimum Arabs” resonates with exclusionary politics and racial separation, further fuelling accusations of apartheid conditions.
Unsurprisingly, Smotrich’s announcement has provoked anger across the region. The United Arab Emirates, which signed the Abraham Accords in 2020 to normalise relations with Israel, declared that annexation of the West Bank would cross a “red line.” For states such as the UAE, which sought to balance ties with Israel while presenting themselves as champions of Palestinian rights, the proposal presents a diplomatic crisis. Continuing to engage with Israel in the face of such actions risks alienating their own populations and undermining credibility across the Arab world.
Beyond the Middle East, European nations and other international actors have reiterated their commitment to the two-state solution. Several Western governments are moving towards formal recognition of a Palestinian state, partly in response to such aggressive proposals. At the United Nations, momentum is building behind Palestinian diplomatic efforts, and Israel’s move could accelerate this process. If the annexation were to be enacted, it would likely isolate Israel further and strain its alliances.
International law prohibits the annexation of territory acquired by force. The Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly forbids the transfer of an occupying power’s civilian population into occupied territory. These principles underpin the global consensus that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal. Smotrich’s proposal would therefore not only contravene international law but actively flaunt it. By integrating vast swathes of the West Bank into its legal and administrative system, Israel would signal an outright rejection of the rules-based international order.
Ethically, the plan raises questions about self-determination, human rights, and justice. Palestinians have the right to govern themselves in their own homeland. Denying them that right in perpetuity is not a neutral political manoeuvre; it is an act of domination. The language of demographic control — preserving territory while minimising the Arab population — reduces people to obstacles rather than citizens with inherent dignity. It is this underlying logic that has drawn comparisons to apartheid regimes of the past.
Domestically, Smotrich’s plan reflects the growing influence of far-right parties within Israel’s governing coalition. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, though historically cautious about outright annexation, has relied on such figures to maintain his political survival. Smotrich, a key coalition partner, is leveraging his position to push through ideological goals that once seemed too extreme to gain mainstream traction.
Within Israeli society, reactions are mixed. Some segments of the population, particularly religious nationalists, embrace annexation as a fulfilment of historical destiny. Others, including liberal and centrist voices, warn that such a move would entrench conflict, undermine democracy, and risk transforming Israel into a pariah state. The debate exposes deep divisions about the future identity of Israel: whether it can be both a Jewish state and a democratic one while ruling over millions of disenfranchised Palestinians.
For decades, the two-state solution has been the cornerstone of international diplomacy. The idea was simple: Israel and Palestine would exist side by side, with secure borders and mutual recognition. However, the relentless expansion of settlements, the entrenchment of occupation, and the deep mistrust on both sides have eroded this vision. Smotrich’s annexation proposal may well be the final nail in the coffin of that idea.
If 82 per cent of the West Bank is annexed, what remains for a Palestinian state? Enclaves cut off from one another cannot form the basis of viable sovereignty. Instead, Palestinians would be left with a pseudo-state, lacking contiguity, resources, or true independence. The prospect of meaningful negotiations would vanish, replaced by permanent subjugation.
The international community has repeatedly condemned Israeli settlement activity and proposed annexations, yet concrete consequences have been rare. Statements of concern, warnings about “red lines,” and resolutions at the United Nations have not halted the expansion of settlements. Palestinians often view these declarations as empty rhetoric, as Israel continues to act with impunity.
Whether the world will respond differently this time remains uncertain. The recognition of a Palestinian state by more countries could alter diplomatic dynamics, but without enforcement mechanisms, Israel may simply disregard these moves. Economic pressure, sanctions, or restrictions on military aid would carry more weight, but such measures face resistance, particularly in the United States, Israel’s closest ally.
Amid geopolitical debates and legal arguments, it is essential not to lose sight of the human impact. For ordinary Palestinians, annexation threatens to exacerbate an already harsh reality. Restrictions on movement, unequal access to resources, and recurring violence have defined life under occupation. The prospect of being confined to isolated enclaves deepens the sense of despair. For many young Palestinians, the dream of statehood may fade entirely, replaced by the grim acceptance of life under permanent control.
For Israelis, the consequences are also profound. Annexation would not bring peace or security. Instead, it risks perpetuating cycles of violence, fostering international condemnation, and deepening divisions within Israeli society. The idea that sovereignty over land can guarantee safety ignores the reality that true security comes from justice and mutual recognition.
Smotrich’s proposal has not yet been enacted into law, but it signals a direction of travel within Israeli politics. If pursued, it would mark one of the most consequential shifts in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since 1967. The choice before the international community, and indeed before Israelis themselves, is whether to accept this trajectory or to resist it.
For Palestinians, the struggle continues under increasingly dire circumstances. Whether through diplomacy, international solidarity movements, or grassroots resistance, they will seek to assert their right to self-determination. Yet without decisive international support, their aspirations may remain unrealised.
The plan to annex 82 per cent of the West Bank represents more than a political manoeuvre; it is a test of principles. It challenges the credibility of international law, the viability of the two-state solution, and the moral conscience of the world. By seeking maximum territory with minimum people, it reduces a national struggle to a demographic equation. For Palestinians, it signals the threat of permanent dispossession. For Israel, it risks undermining democracy and inviting global isolation. And for the international community, it poses a question of whether words will finally be matched with meaningful action.
At its core, the issue is not merely about land, but about justice. A just peace requires equality, recognition, and respect for the dignity of all who call the land home. Annexation, by contrast, promises only division and despair. The future of both peoples depends on choosing a different path.