New Israeli regulations in the West Bank are dramatically escalating Palestinian fears, igniting concerns over de facto annexation and intensifying the debate around whether the policies constitute apartheid. These measures, particularly focused on land registration and planning authority, are reshaping daily life and further entrenching control in the occupied territory. The situation, especially volatile in cities like Hebron, fuels a complex and deeply emotional international discussion.
Unpacking the New Israeli Regulations in the West Bank
The core of the heightened tensions stems from recent decisions by Israel’s Security Cabinet. These policies are designed to tighten Israeli oversight across the West Bank, directly impacting Palestinian governance and facilitating land acquisition for Jewish settlers. Key elements of these new regulations include:
Reassigning Planning Authority: Local Palestinian governorates, previously responsible for planning and building in their areas, are being stripped of this power. This authority, especially around the contested Ibrahimi Mosque and within Hebron’s historic Old City, is now transferred to Israeli officials. The Ibrahimi Mosque, a UNESCO World Heritage site, holds immense religious significance for Muslims, Jews, and Christians.
Initiating Land Registration: For the first time since 1967, when Israel took control of the West Bank from Jordan, ministers have approved a process for land registration. Under previous Jordanian rule, only about a third of the land was formally registered, leaving many Palestinians without official documentation to prove ownership.
The Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry defends these land registration efforts as purely “administrative.” They claim the measures aim to provide “transparent and thorough clarification of rights,” ultimately protecting the property rights of both Israelis and Palestinians. However, this justification is vehemently disputed by Palestinian authorities and international human rights organizations.
Voices from the Ground: Life Under Tightening Control
In Hebron’s Old City, a UNESCO World Heritage site marked by fenced-off streets and barbed wire, the daily reality for Palestinians is one of mounting pressure. Monzer Shawamla, a local baker, vividly recalls a time when his streets bustled, and even Israeli soldiers frequented his bakery for ka’ak, a traditional bagel-like bread. However, since the October 7, 2023, attack and the subsequent Israeli crackdown, his shop is one of the few survivors amidst hundreds of shuttered businesses. Shawamla describes “unbearable harassment” and regular humiliation at the hands of Israeli soldiers and Jewish settlers. He poignantly remarks, “We are like someone standing on ice. While others warm themselves by the fire and the heater, we are left standing on ice.”
Khaled Dudin, the Palestinian governor of Hebron, unequivocally asserts that “the measures on the ground constitute annexation in every sense of the word.” He argues that real annexation is unfolding on the ground, regardless of official declarations. Dudin further states that “Apartheid now exists in every sense of the word,” reflecting a profound shift in how Palestinian officials perceive the situation.
Israeli humanitarian organization Peace Now warns that the new land legislation places nearly impossible conditions on Palestinian landowners. Failure to meet these stringent requirements could lead to their land being automatically registered in the state of Israel’s name.
The Apartheid Debate: Competing Narratives
The term “apartheid” is increasingly used by human rights organizations and legal experts to describe Israel’s policies toward Palestinians. This designation, rooted in international criminal law, refers to an institutionalized system of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over another, committed with the intent of maintaining that regime.
Arguments for the “Apartheid” Label
Leading human rights organizations like Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International have concluded that Israeli authorities are systematically privileging Jewish Israelis while discriminating against Palestinians. Their reports, including HRW’s “A Threshold Crossed,” highlight:
Intent to Dominate: Israel’s 2018 “nation-state” law, which declares Israel the “nation-state of the Jewish people” and states that self-determination is unique to them, is cited as evidence of intent to maintain Jewish Israeli control.
Systematic Oppression: Palestinians in the West Bank are governed by military law, subjected to severe movement restrictions, and face widespread land confiscation. In East Jerusalem, their residency rights are precarious. Within Israel, Palestinian citizens face institutional discrimination in land ownership and family reunification, creating a “two-tiered citizenship structure.”
Inhumane Acts: These include mass land confiscations, home demolitions, denial of building permits, and the extensive blockade of Gaza since 2007. Critics argue many of these actions lack legitimate security justification and disproportionately impact Palestinian rights. Former UN special rapporteur Michael Lynk, along with some former Israeli officials, has also publicly stated that Israel operates an apartheid regime.
Arguments Against the “Apartheid” Label
Israel and its allies vehemently reject the apartheid label, calling it “preposterous and false.” The Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry, for instance, frames the new land registration as an administrative measure for legal clarity. Supporters of Israel offer several counterarguments:
Security Concerns: Many policies, particularly movement restrictions and barriers, are presented as necessary responses to genuine security threats, not as tools of racial discrimination.
Diversity and Rights within Israel: Proponents point to the fact that Palestinian citizens of Israel have the right to vote, serve in the Knesset (parliament), judiciary, and various professions. They also highlight the diversity of Israeli society, including “brown, tanned, Middle Eastern Jews” from various origins, challenging narratives of “white privilege.”
Restrictions on Jews: An opinion piece in The Jerusalem Post highlights perceived discrimination against Jews, such as severe restrictions on prayer and access at holy sites like the Temple Mount (controlled by the Jordanian Waqf) and the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, where Jews are limited to living in only three percent of the city.
- Lack of Racial Segregation in Law: While discrimination may exist, critics argue racial segregation is not enshrined in Israeli law, and examples of coexistence are visible in daily life across Israel.
- www.nbcnews.com
- www.britannica.com
- www.jpost.com
- www.hrw.org
- www.vox.com
Political Motivations and International Stances
The timing and nature of these regulations are deeply intertwined with Israel’s domestic politics. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, facing an election, views the establishment of an independent Palestinian state as a security threat. His ruling coalition includes far-right politicians, notably Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who openly advocates for the annexation of the West Bank and aims to significantly expand the settler population. Smotrich, himself a member of the settler community, has been instrumental in approving new settlements and planning controversial projects like E1, which would effectively sever the northern and southern West Bank.
The international community predominantly views Israeli settlement construction as illegal and a significant obstacle to peace. While many Western governments and Middle Eastern nations have expressed concern or condemnation regarding settlement expansion, the U.S. administration’s response to these specific new measures has been notably muted or unclear, diverging from past condemnations of Israeli expansion. President Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the Palestinian Authority, has called for a “decisive stance” from the U.S. and the international community.
The Future of the Two-State Solution
These new regulations further complicate the already remote prospects for a two-state solution—a long-standing international framework for peace envisioning an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. Many, including former U.S. presidents and UN officials, argue it is the only viable path to regional security. However, with continued settlement expansion and policies consolidating Israeli control, the physical and political viability of a contiguous Palestinian state is increasingly challenged.
Some voices, both Israeli and Palestinian, now argue that a two-state solution is no longer feasible, advocating instead for alternative paths, including a one-state reality. This perspective recognizes the intertwined nature of the territories and calls for new approaches to ensure equal rights, whether within separate entities or a single, shared state.
The Enduring Resolve of Palestinian Communities
Despite the mounting pressures, the daily realities of enforced separation through Israeli barriers, military checkpoints, and curfews, and the persistent threat of settler violence (the UN recorded over 1,800 settler attacks in 2025, the highest daily average since 2006), many Palestinians express profound determination. Monzer Shawamla, the baker, embodies this resilience. Aided by flour and semolina provided by the local governorate, he vows to continue his family business. “If institutions continue to support us, we will keep working until our very last breath,” he states, emphasizing their resolve to “preserve our birthplace — our shops. We live here. We were born in the Old City.” This steadfastness underscores the enduring human element at the heart of the complex Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Frequently Asked Questions
What specific new Israeli regulations are causing alarm in the West Bank?
The primary regulations causing alarm include the stripping of planning and building authority from local Palestinian governorates, transferring it to Israeli officials, particularly around the Ibrahimi Mosque and Hebron’s Old City. Additionally, Israel has initiated a land registration process for the first time since 1967. This move is deeply concerning for Palestinians who often lack formal land documentation, as failure to prove ownership could result in land being registered under Israel’s name.
Why do Palestinians and human rights organizations call these new regulations “apartheid” and “annexation”?
Palestinians and human rights groups like HRW argue these regulations constitute “annexation in every sense of the word” because they systematically consolidate Israeli control over the West Bank, particularly land, effectively integrating it into Israel without formal declaration. The “apartheid” label is applied because they see these policies as part of an institutionalized system designed to maintain Israeli Jewish domination over Palestinians, characterized by systematic oppression, land confiscation, movement restrictions, and a dual legal system based on ethnic identity.
What are the differing international perspectives on these new Israeli measures?
The international community largely considers Israeli settlement construction and annexation attempts illegal and obstacles to peace, with many Western governments expressing concern. However, responses to these specific new regulations vary. The U.S. administration, for instance, has been notably muted compared to past condemnations. Israel defends the measures as administrative actions for legal clarity and security, while Palestinian leadership calls for decisive international intervention, particularly from the U.S., to oppose what they view as severe violations.
These developments highlight the enduring and complex struggle over land, rights, and sovereignty in the West Bank. The deeply entrenched positions and the starkly different interpretations of legal and humanitarian obligations continue to make a lasting peace elusive.
