Legally Licensed Occupation

The confusion regarding the Israeli government's decision to start registering vast areas of the West Bank as "state property" is not mere intellectual indulgence; rather, it reflects a core political and moral predicament faced by anyone who still believes that the international system has meaning, international law has function, and international legitimacy has value that transcends mere texts. The scene, with all its elements, presents the observer with two bitter choices: either to cautiously welcome any international rejectionist stance, even if it comes late and softened, or to be engulfed in astonishment at a world that witnesses the repetition of crime, documented and announced, and then settles for issuing statements of concern.

This decision, in essence, is neither surprising nor exceptional. It is an advanced link in a long chain of creeping annexation, which Israel has mastered with cold pragmatism since 1967. The only difference is that what had previously been practiced under the banners of "security" or "temporary" is now presented as a complete state policy, unashamed to declare its intentions and seeing no need to justify them. Here, we are not talking about a deviation in behavior, but rather about a firmly rooted doctrine that considers the occupied land a legitimate booty, and international law a mere formal obstacle that can be surpassed with patience and gradualism.

The astonishing – or scandalous – aspect is not the Israeli behavior itself, but the international environment that has allowed it to become a stable norm. The world that claims to defend a rules-based order is the same that has provided Israel with an unprecedented umbrella of political and moral immunity. Dozens of international resolutions have been issued, the most notable being Resolution 2334, all of which remain toothless. No sanctions, no costs, no price. Thus, Israel has learned a simple and dangerous lesson: violating the law is permissible as long as punishment is not in the cards.

Some find it pleasing to distinguish between "official annexation" and "administrative measures," as if registering land as state property is a technical, not a political, issue. This distinction is not only naive; it is deliberately misleading. Modern annexation does not require dramatic proclamations or official speeches. It is enough to re-engineer the land, impose a new legal and administrative reality, and trap the original populations within overcrowded cantons, for the declaration to become merely a subsequent detail. This is how empires are managed in the 21st century: silently, with plenty of paperwork and stamps.

Since the Oslo Accords, settlement has not been an incidental aspect of the "peace" process; it has been its true infrastructure. While negotiations were managed around the "final solution," bulldozers worked relentlessly, new maps were drawn on the ground, resources were confiscated, and villages were separated from their natural surroundings. The Palestinian Authority has been kept as an administrative body stripped of sovereignty, while the essence of control remains in the hands of the occupation. Today, the decision regarding "state property" comes to clearly state: what was temporary has ended, and what was negotiable is now closed.

The comparison with Sinai is often used to beautify the picture, but in reality, it confirms the rule rather than denies it. Sinai was not annexed because it entered into a different international political equation, which imposed a strategic cost on Israel for the annexation. On the other hand, the Golan was annexed when Israel realized that the cost was negligible, and the West Bank is on the same trajectory, but with a more cunning and less noisy tactic.

The real question that should be posed is not about Israel's intentions; they have become transparent, but rather about the impotence or complicity of the international community. Why are sanctions imposed on countries that violate international law in certain cases, while the world turns a blind eye when Israel is the violator? Why is the occupation treated as a "manageable conflict" rather than a continuous crime? The painful answer is that double standards are no longer a flaw in the international system; they have become one of its unspoken pillars.

The most dangerous aspect of the decision to register the land is not what it takes from the Palestinians, but what it reveals about the world: a world that has lost political courage, has replaced justice with realism, and has exchanged law for balances. In this context, annexation ceases to be a shocking event; it becomes a logical result of a system that has chosen silence as a partner, neglect as a policy, and waiting as a virtue. When looting is legalized, defending the right becomes an elitist act... and simultaneously a form of resistance.

In conclusion, the danger of the "state property" decision lies not in the number of dunams confiscated, but in the philosophy that underpins it: a philosophy that considers law a tool of power, not a constraint upon it. And when occupation is managed with stamps instead of tanks, and looting is codified instead of condemned, the question is not solely about the future of the West Bank, but about the fate of an international system that has chosen silence as a partner, legitimacy as a masquerade, and annexation as a usual matter.