Jerusalem — Israel’s security cabinet has approved a controversial package of measures aimed at expanding its authority in the occupied West Bank — moves that critics say could further erode hopes for a Palestinian state and amount to de facto annexation of territory Palestinians seek for a future country.
The votes, which took place on Sunday, 8 February 2026, were led by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Defence Minister Israel Katz, both influential figures in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition government. The changes overhaul decades-old legal and administrative rules governing land, planning, enforcement and settlement life in the territory, altering the legal landscape in ways that could reshape Israeli-Palestinian relations.
What the New Rules Do
Among the most notable elements of the cabinet’s decisions:
- Land law overhaul: Restrictions dating back to Jordanian administration of the territory that barred private Jewish citizens from buying West Bank land have been repealed. This opens the door for Israeli individuals to purchase land directly, rather than through state companies only.
- Open land registries: Previously confidential land records will now be made public, in part to “improve transparency,” according to Israeli officials — but critics say this will make it easier to identify and acquire disputed properties.
- State-led acquisition: The Land Acquisition Committee, dormant for nearly two decades, is being revived to proactively buy land for future settlement expansion.
- Expanded enforcement powers: Israeli authorities will now enforce environmental, archaeological, water and other regulations in areas usually under Palestinian Authority (PA) control, including parts of Areas A and B defined under the Oslo Accords. Planning authority for parts of the West Bank’s largest Palestinian city, Hebron, is being shifted from the local municipality to Israel’s civil administration.
Together, these changes codify administrative control that many see as cementing Israeli authority across the West Bank — a territory captured by Israel in the 1967 war and long central to the conflict.
Reactions: From Jerusalem to Ramallah and Beyond
Israeli leaders backing the moves describe the changes as needed reforms that will integrate life for Jewish residents and security operations in the West Bank. Smotrich has openly stated the goal is to “bury the idea of a Palestinian state” and anchor Jewish settlement as state policy on the ground.
Palestinian authorities reacted sharply. President Mahmoud Abbas labelled the decisions “dangerous” and an effort to legalize settlement expansion and land confiscation, calling on the United States and the United Nations to intervene. The militant group Hamas urged Palestinians to “intensify” resistance.
Critics — including Palestinian officials, rights groups and international governments — warn the moves undermine the two-state solution and violate international law. Several Arab and Muslim-majority countries condemned the changes as illegal and discriminatory, while the United Kingdom’s government called on Israel to reverse the decisions. The UN Secretary-General also expressed grave concern, warning the actions could erode prospects for peace.
International and Regional Context
The timing of the cabinet’s approval — just days before a scheduled meeting between Prime Minister Netanyahu and U.S. President Donald Trump — adds diplomatic complexity. White House officials have asserted that formal annexation is not Washington’s goal, even as they have stopped short of directly opposing ongoing settlement expansion.
The broader backdrop includes years of rising settlement construction, frequent disputes over land rights, and ongoing clashes between Israeli forces, settlers and Palestinian residents. The West Bank is home to roughly 700,000 Israeli settlers and around 3 million Palestinians, a demographic mixture that has fueled decades of tension and conflict.
What Happens Next?
While the cabinet’s decisions are technically internal policy, many of the measures do not require additional legislative approval and could be implemented swiftly. Observers on all sides say the effects — whether legal, social or geopolitical — are likely to unfold over years. Supporters argue the changes correct outdated governance structures, while opponents see them as a decisive step toward unilateral control that could harden divisions and dampen any near-term prospects for negotiated peace
