Sanur's Return: The Annexation Message That Shatters the Illusions of the Disheartened

The issue of settlement in the West Bank is no longer merely a policy of gradual expansion imposed by successive Israeli governments under security or religious pretexts. Rather, it has become a clear expression of a deeper strategic transformation: the transition from managing the occupation to reproducing it in a more rigid and comprehensive form. In this context, the re-establishment of the Sanur settlement stands out as a significant marker, not because it is a new settlement site, but because it is a model for re-occupying what was previously evacuated, as if political time can be erased and started from scratch. What is happening in Sanur cannot be separated from a broader context witnessing a rapid erosion of the very idea of “withdrawal” within the Israeli political mind. The disengagement plan of 2005, which was presented at the time as a strategic step for repositioning, is being re-read today within the right-wing current as a historical mistake that must be corrected. With the rise of the religious and national right to the center of decision-making, the goal is no longer just to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, but to go beyond that towards regaining direct control over the largest possible area of land. Sanur, in this sense, is merely a test, a test of the ability to break previous restrictions, whether legal or political, and a test of Palestinian and international reactions alike. The re-establishment of a settlement that was evacuated by an official Israeli decision implicitly means that everything previously agreed upon or implemented is no longer binding, and that the current balance of power is the sole reference. But more dangerous than that, this step reflects a shift in the function of settlement itself. After it was a tool for imposing gradual facts on the ground, today it is being used as a tool to radically re-engineer the Palestinian geographical space. The goal is no longer just to expand a settlement or link it to another, but to create an integrated control network based on isolation and fragmentation, which transforms Palestinian communities into isolated islands lacking any real geographical connection. In the northern West Bank specifically, this policy acquires an additional dimension. The area, which was historically considered less densely settled compared to the central and southern West Bank, is gradually turning into an open arena for settlement redeployment. With the re-establishment of sites like Sanur and Homesh, it becomes clear that there is a trend to redraw the settlement map in this area, imposing a new reality that restricts Palestinian movement and reshapes the balance of control. The question that arises here is not only why now, but also where is this policy heading? The answer seems linked to the nature of the political stage within Israel, where there is no longer any embarrassment in openly presenting annexation projects, and there is no longer a need to wrap settlement policies in “security” or “temporary” discourse. We are facing a political moment that sees the land as an open field for decisive action, not for negotiation. In contrast, this escalation comes amid a distressed Palestinian reality, suffering from deep political division and a decline in the ability to formulate a unified confrontation strategy, which gives the settlement project a wider margin for movement, in the absence of a real political cost that could deter it. The re-establishment of Sanur is not just a step on the ground, but an announcement of a new phase in the conflict, titled by the redefinition of the occupation itself. It is no longer about managing an existing situation, but about completely reshaping it according to a vision that considers every previous withdrawal merely a detail that can be erased. In light of this transformation, the biggest challenge is not only to confront settlement expansion, but to realize that what is happening is an attempt to close any future horizon for a political solution, and to replace it with a permanent reality imposed by force and reproduced whenever the opportunity arises. ————————————————————————————————————The re-establishment of Sanur is not just a step on the ground, but an announcement of a new phase in the conflict, titled by the redefinition of the occupation itself. It is no longer about managing an existing situation, but about completely reshaping it according to a vision that considers every previous withdrawal merely a detail that can be erased.