By Syed Shamim Akhtar
Israel’s security cabinet has approved the establishment of 19 new Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank, a decision that brings the total number sanctioned over the past three years to 69. The announcement has reignited international concern over the viability of a future Palestinian state, a question that has long hung over the region as settlement expansion steadily reshapes the map of the West Bank. A statement from the office of Israel’s far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, confirmed that the cabinet had endorsed a proposal he and the defence minister, Israel Katz, jointly presented to formally recognize the new settlements in the territory Israel refers to as Judea and Samaria. The statement offered no clarity on the exact timing of the decision, but the message was unambiguous.
Smotrich framed the approval as part of a deliberate strategy to prevent the emergence of a Palestinian state, describing it as “practical steps on the ground” to obstruct statehood. He added that settlement construction and development would continue across what he described as Israel’s historic land, signaling the government’s enduring commitment to expanding the Jewish presence in the West Bank. The announcement comes amid sustained global criticism of Israel’s settlement policies. Palestinian leaders and human rights organizations argue that the settlements violate international law and represent a fundamental barrier to the long-discussed two-state solution. Each new approval, they warn, entrenches an occupation that has already complicated efforts at negotiation, restricting movement, undermining infrastructure, and eroding trust between communities.
The decision underscores the persistent tensions that define the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For decades, settlement expansion has been a flashpoint, drawing condemnation from much of the international community. Successive Israeli governments have defended the settlements as consistent with historical and security claims, leaving little room for compromise. Meanwhile, Palestinians confront the consequences in their daily lives: land taken for housing, roads and security measures that fragment communities, and the ever-present uncertainty of whether the territory they inhabit will remain theirs in the future. The latest approvals illustrate the narrowing window for a viable Palestinian state. The settlements are often strategically placed, creating a patchwork of areas under Israeli control that disrupts the territorial contiguity essential for Palestinian autonomy.
Observers argue that these approvals are not isolated decisions but part of a sustained policy designed to consolidate control over key parts of the West Bank. Each expansion, no matter how small, becomes another obstacle to the negotiation table and a further reminder of the structural imbalance between the two sides. Human rights groups have described the move as a deliberate effort to entrench occupation and diminish any remaining hope for meaningful negotiation. The settlements are not merely domestic policy; they reshape the possibilities for regional diplomacy. For Palestinians, every new outpost represents not just the physical loss of land but also the erosion of a vision for a sovereign future.
They are markers of a reality in which political aspirations are constrained by expanding infrastructure and legal frameworks that prioritize settlement growth over the prospect of a negotiated settlement. International reactions to past settlement approvals have ranged from muted criticism to formal condemnation. Yet these interventions have had limited impact. The latest decision highlights the difficulties the international community faces in influencing Israeli policy, particularly when powerful allies either remain neutral or lend tacit support. While statements and resolutions may express concern, the pace of settlement expansion often continues unabated, further complicating the path toward a peaceful resolution. For Palestinians, settlement growth is not an abstract political debate. It is an immediate reality that shapes everyday life.
The construction of new settlements brings with it roads, security checkpoints, and other infrastructure that restricts movement and access to essential services. Communities that have lived for generations in certain areas find themselves increasingly isolated, their opportunities for economic development curtailed, and their ability to plan for the future severely limited. In this way, settlement expansion deepens grievances and fuels the sense of injustice that has long characterised the conflict. The broader question of peace remains unresolved. Israel justifies settlement expansion on historical and security grounds, arguing that its presence in the West Bank is part of a long-standing claim and a defensive strategy. Critics contend, however, that such justifications undermine long-term stability, making coexistence ever more difficult to imagine.
(The writer has diverse in knowledge and has a good omen in politics, can be reached at editorial@metro-morning.com)
