Netanyahu's Settlement Expansion Looks Like De Facto Annexation, a Breach of the Peace, a Violation of International Law and Maybe Apartheid

7:17 AM Wednesday.

I disagree with the premise that UN Security Council Resolutions 2334 and 2803 are contradictory, or that 2803 abrogates 2334. In my view, the continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank looks like a form of de facto annexation which, combined with illegal occupation, could be a form of one-state apartheid. I am not certain it actually is apartheid, in large part because UKLFI makes such an excellent case in Israel's defense:

But whether it rises to the level of apartheid or not, it's certainly a breach of the peace (as defined by the UN Security Council) and a violation of international law (as defined by the International Court of Justice and the UN General Assembly). Israel has every right to the best possible representation, but UKLFI is not the UN Security Council or the International Court of Justice (even if I agree that a coherent interpretation of the 1920 San Remo conference would have prevented the situation we have on the ground now). UKLFI's legal reasoning, however sound theoretically, is a minority dissent. It is not currently the majority interpretation by either the Security Council or the ICJ.  

President Trump said he will not allow annexation of the West Bank. Did he really mean it, or did he mean that he would look the other way while Prime Minister Netanyahu expands settlements and continues de facto annexation on the ground?

By minimizing the issue of West Bank settlement expansion, President Trump is contradicting the UAE and threatening the Abraham Accords. He needs to be an honest broker. Who is going to back his Board of Peace and International Stabilization Force in Gaza if he looks the other way while Israel continues its policy of creeping annexation in the West Bank?

The pushback that I expect from Israel, and that we all need to take seriously, is the argument that settlement expansion in Judea and Samaria is vital to Israel's security because the Palestinian population has absolutely no interest in a peaceful two-state solution. Any move toward a "two-state solution," as the Netanyahu coalition sees it, is likely a pretense for the next stage of an Arab, Turkish and Iranian offensive in a long-running campaign to wipe the settler colonial stain of Israel off the Muslim world map. "From the river to the see, Palestine will be free." Against this backdrop, and especially in the wake of October 7, Israel needs to keep the high ground in Judea and Samaria for obvious reasons until there is genuine change in attitude from the Palestinian people and government. Strategic settlement expansion is the only practical way to achieve this security imperative.

It's a good argument, but I think it would be smarter for Israel to express its preference for a genuine two-state solution, and put a freeze on settlement expansion, before the ISF begins Phase 2 of Trump's transformational peace plan, hopefully in early in January.  

These are extremely tough calls for Israel and the Trump administration. My prayers for all of the involved analysts and decision-makers, as well as everyone on the ground.

End 8:26 AM.