Israel and Its War in the West Bank

Israel is currently waging three wars, each involving different forms and degrees of military and security operations, accompanied by different forms of political rhetoric intended to justify them. This is particularly evident amid the growing dominance of hardline religious and strategic right-wing thinking within Israel’s political sphere, both in government and beyond it.

In Gaza, Israeli conditions continue to obstruct efforts to consolidate the ceasefire and move effectively toward implementing the “roadmap” overseen by the “Peace Council” established for this purpose. The principal Israeli obstacle remains centered on the complete disarmament of Hamas before moving forward with this process.

In Lebanon, military operations are still continuing, although their geographical scope remains limited for now. They are being conducted within a broader framework in which territorial issues are used as leverage to advance Israeli demands, or more specifically, to reinforce Israel’s priorities at the negotiating table.

In the West Bank, meanwhile, a forceful process of Judaization has been gaining momentum, particularly since July. This process encompasses both the territorial and demographic dimensions, through land seizures, the construction of roads and physical barriers, and restrictions on water access aimed at constraining the Palestinian economy and creating increasingly difficult conditions that could encourage Palestinians to leave their land.

This process, carried out through violent and unlawful means, is closely connected to ideological and strategic objectives centered on the concept of a “Greater Israel.” The policy of expanding settlements through the establishment of new outposts or the enlargement of existing ones, coupled with the arming and empowerment of settlers, has facilitated the extension of their control over additional areas. These developments have taken place alongside official government rhetoric and measures on the ground that not only justify, but in some cases encourage, settlers to pursue what they perceive as a “sacred mission.”

Statements by Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s Minister of National Security, provide further evidence of the increasingly explicit shift toward accelerating the process of annexing the West Bank. Similar developments have already been witnessed, and continue to be witnessed, in East Jerusalem.

According to figures from the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics for 2024, the West Bank has a population of approximately 5.3 million people, including around half a million Israeli settlers. Israel’s policy in the West Bank appears increasingly clear and active, while international responses, where they exist, have generally remained limited and cautious.

This policy also seeks to undermine the possibility of reaching a comprehensive, lasting, and equitable settlement based on the two-state solution. Despite the considerable obstacles and difficulties posed by Israeli policies, as noted above, the two-state solution remains the only framework that combines international legitimacy, legal grounding, and practical feasibility for the settlement sought by the international community.

This is supported by relevant international resolutions as well as the growing level of international recognition of the two-state framework. What is required today, rather than tomorrow, is effective Arab and international action to halt these Israeli policies, which appear to be gaining momentum ahead of the forthcoming Knesset elections and are becoming an important instrument of political competition among Israel’s major political forces, despite their differences on other issues and their broad convergence around this objective.

It is also clear that influential international actors concerned with regional stability possess a range of potentially effective instruments of pressure, should they choose to employ them. These include their diverse relations with Israel across the security, political, and economic spheres, as well as the relevant resolutions of international institutions.

Such instruments could be used to press for an end to the policies aimed at altering the character of the West Bank and displacing its Palestinian population as part of a broader strategy associated with the concept of “Greater Israel.”

Simply issuing condemnations or making cautious appeals while remaining largely on the sidelines could, indirectly, facilitate the creation of the new reality sought by Israel and contribute to the consolidation of a broader “Greater Israel” strategy.

Such a development would have serious repercussions for neighboring states and for the region as a whole, as well as for the interests of the international powers concerned with regional stability. Their priorities may differ regarding the nature and extent of the stability they seek, but they share an interest in preventing a further deterioration of the regional environment at a time when the Middle East is undergoing profound transformations accompanied by significant strategic challenges.

In conclusion, maintaining a passive posture will almost certainly contribute to escalating regional tensions, given the interconnectedness of the various conflicts and the direct and indirect ways in which developments in one arena affect others. Such dynamics risk strengthening extremist forces, deepening instability, and contributing to the emergence of an increasingly fragmented and disorderly regional system whose costs will ultimately be borne by all parties, albeit at different times and in different forms.

The international community therefore bears a primary responsibility—alongside a clear Arab responsibility—to act before the region moves further toward an outcome that may appear uncertain, yet whose consequences could become increasingly foreseeable.