The Knesset has passed the first reading of legislation to extend full Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank.

Iyad Shamasneh

In a move described as the most dangerous shift since the occupation of the West Bank in 1967, the Israeli Knesset approved, in its first reading, a bill imposing full Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank, thereby violating the Green Line and all interim agreements signed with the Palestinian side since the 1993 Oslo Accords.
This move, prompted directly by the right-wing nationalist and religious parties within the ruling coalition, has reshuffled the geopolitical landscape in occupied Palestine and sparked mixed regional and international reactions, amid warnings of the collapse of what remains of the legal framework for a political solution based on the two-state principle.
This legislation comes in the context of escalating settlement expansion in the West Bank, where the number of settlers now exceeds 750,000, spread across more than 150 settlements and outposts. Although Israel's de facto sovereignty over the territory has existed for years, this law seeks to legally and constitutionally consolidate it by incorporating the West Bank into the Israeli judicial and sovereign system.
Although the law is still in its preliminary stage (the first of three readings required for final approval), its passage at this stage represents a highly significant political signal regarding the strategic direction of the current Israeli government, which is led by a hard-right coalition that includes parties such as Likud, Religious Zionism, and Shas.
From a Palestinian perspective, the vote represents a final step toward undermining the two-state solution. It not only annexes Area C—which constitutes more than 60% of the West Bank—but also includes the entire West Bank, including major Palestinian cities. If implemented, it would mean one of two things:
1. Forced dissolution of the Palestinian Authority: There is no longer any legal basis for its continued existence under the Oslo Accords.
2. Imposing formal apartheid: Palestinians live under Israeli sovereignty without civil or political rights equal to settlers.
The Palestinian Authority's response so far has been limited to statements of condemnation and threats to reconsider the "security relationship" with Israel, without taking any practical steps. However, the magnitude of the Israeli decision this time could push it to collapse or completely retract any previous commitments.

Regarding the international position, the European Union expressed its "deep concern," stressing that the move "violates international law and Security Council resolutions," while the United Nations issued a statement calling on Israel to "cease unilateral measures that undermine the two-state solution."
However, on the practical level, there were no indications that the international community was prepared to impose sanctions or deterrent measures. As for the United States, the administration expressed "reservations," with timid calls to halt the unilateral steps. At the same time, it did not link the move to any tangible consequences, giving Israel an implicit green light to continue. For their part, some countries in Latin America and Africa with growing relations with Israel welcomed the decision, deeming it a "domestic sovereign matter."
Under international law, imposing sovereignty over occupied territory constitutes a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its civilian population into occupied territory or changing its legal and administrative character.
The decision also undermines the principle of the "right to self-determination" guaranteed to the Palestinians by the United Nations, and may strengthen Palestinian demands in international forums to review Israel's legal status and open cases before the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.
The Israeli Knesset's first reading of the bill imposing full Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank was not a symbolic step or a mere political maneuver in a season of volatile coalitions. Rather, it constituted a clear political declaration of a radical strategic shift in the nature of the Zionist project toward the occupied Palestinian territory. It is, simply put, a watershed moment between two eras: before legal annexation and after.
If this law is completed with its remaining readings, Israel will have hammered the final nail into the coffin of the two-state solution, declaring the end of the Oslo Accords and paving the way for a radical shift in the nature of the conflict and its outcomes. In this context, four central scenarios emerge that could potentially shape the next phase:
First: A widespread Palestinian popular escalation
Observers believe that the Knesset vote could ignite a new wave of Palestinian anger, similar to previous uprisings, but more complex in context and composition. The current Palestinian generation, raised by settlements, the wall, and the erosion of political hopes, is more inclined toward direct and decentralized action.
• The field is prepared: The rising tension in the northern West Bank (Jenin, Nablus, Tulkarm), the proliferation of individual weapons, and the emergence of local resistance groups unconnected to traditional organizations are all factors that portend an imminent escalation.
• Renewable tools: civil disobedience, blocking bypass roads, and widespread strikes, which may be complemented by limited but painful armed resistance operations.
• The symbolism of the moment: The escalation, this time, does not come in protest against a local aggression or settlement, but rather in response to legislation to abolish the homeland itself.
Second: The erosion of the Palestinian Authority and the West Bank entering a political vacuum.
With the loss of the legal and political basis of the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority finds itself facing an existential dilemma: it is no longer a "transitional" authority toward statehood, and it lacks real tools of governance under Israeli sovereignty.
• Decline of function: The transformation of power into a mere service tool without a political horizon will gradually undermine its legitimacy.
• Threat of collapse: In light of economic pressures, the withholding of tax funds (clearance), and popular protests, a gradual process of institutional erosion may begin, leading to the possibility of administrative or security collapse in some areas.
• The result: a political vacuum that could be filled by local forces or resistance groups, or even a direct occupation in which Israel returns to the previous “civil administration” model, with all the costs and burdens that this entails.
Third: Regional reaction - Jordan in the eye of the storm
Jordan remains the country most strategically affected by any change in the status of the West Bank, for geographic, demographic, and political reasons.
• Concern about an alternative homeland: Every change in the situation in the West Bank brings to the surface Jordanian fears of exporting the population crisis to it, whether practically or politically.
• Threat to Hashemite guardianship: Full Israeli sovereignty means the annexation of Jerusalem as well, which threatens Jordan’s traditional role in custodianship of holy sites.
• Response scenario: Oman may resort to gradual steps that include reducing diplomatic representation, internationalizing the file, and perhaps threatening to re-evaluate the Wadi Araba Agreement, without slipping into a comprehensive confrontation.
Fourth: The return of the Palestinian issue to the forefront of the international scene.
Despite the world's preoccupation with the war in Ukraine and the US-China rivalry, the full annexation legislation could push the Palestinian issue from the margins to the forefront once again.
• Action at the United Nations: The Palestinian Authority is expected to demand an emergency session of the Security Council, and to activate previous resolutions condemning settlements and calling for withdrawal from the occupied territories.
• Support from human rights organizations: International organizations such as Human Rights Watch and B'Tselem may escalate their characterization of Israel as an apartheid state, which could contribute to changing the international mood.
• Limits of influence: The lack of American will to impose binding measures on Israel remains the biggest stumbling block to any effective international action, meaning that the international position may remain limited to condemnation without executive measures.
Thus, the first reading of the Israeli Knesset's vote on legislation extending full sovereignty over the West Bank is not merely a passing legislative step. Rather, it represents a pivotal moment that heralds the end of one phase and the beginning of another. It heralds a strategic shift in Israeli political doctrine, effectively ending the Oslo process and redefining the existing reality as a settler-colonial regime that seeks to impose facts rather than negotiate, and control rather than compromise.
The looming scenarios—from the outbreak of a new intifada, to the collapse of the ruling institutions, to the escalation of regional tensions, to the re-internationalization of the Palestinian issue—are no longer mere theoretical speculation, but rather real transformations advancing at an accelerating pace.
At this juncture, the Palestinians once again find themselves faced with a major equation: either accept a legalized apartheid system, or reformulate the national project as a liberation movement against a colonial regime that does not recognize rights and does not allow for a just settlement.
Conversely, if the international community wants to preserve what remains of the credibility of its legal and moral system, it must reconsider its policies toward this conflict and move beyond the language of statements to reactivate international law as a tool for accountability, not merely a rhetorical framework. The Palestinian issue today is no longer simply a matter of borders, but rather a matter of freedom and the right to self-determination in the face of a regime that completely rejects the logic of partnership and peace.

Powered by Froala Editor