Kathmandu— Recent decisions by Israel to shift administrative control in the West Bank from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to the national police are sparking international concern about a gradual process of de facto annexation. While presented as a technical adjustment, this move—along with increased settlement activity and legislative changes—is viewed by legal experts and foreign governments as eroding the distinction between military occupation and sovereignty over Palestinian territories occupied since 1967. The shift began on August 14th when Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz announced the transfer of responsibility for civilian law enforcement in the West Bank to the police, citing a focus on countering terrorism and protecting settlements.

Shifting Authority and Normalizing Occupation

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz stated that the IDF’s role should be focused on security threats rather than “chasing after youths on the hills,” signaling a move away from direct military governance of civilian life in the West Bank. He explained that responsibility for law enforcement concerning settlers and civilian matters would now fall to the Israel Police. This transfer, as noted by Aline Jaccottet in Le Temps, effectively treats the Palestinian territories as integral parts of Israeli national territory. The change is seen as a key step in normalizing what was initially intended as a temporary military occupation.

International Law and Prolonged Occupation

Under international humanitarian law, Israel, as the occupying power, bears specific duties towards the Palestinian civilian population. However, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has cautioned that prolonged occupation does not equate to sovereignty. The ICJ’s 2024 Advisory Opinion highlighted this principle, stating that an occupying power must administer territory for the benefit of the local population. Furthermore, eminent jurists Georges Abi-Saab and Marcelo Kohen have argued that a sufficiently extended occupation may itself become unlawful, blurring the line between military control and full governance. The International Committee of the Red Cross has echoed these concerns, noting that the longer an occupation lasts, the more difficult it becomes to distinguish it from ordinary government.

Legislative Changes and Rhetorical Shifts

Beyond administrative changes, Israel’s rhetoric and legislative actions are reinforcing perceptions of a long-term claim over the West Bank. Israeli leaders increasingly refer to the area as “Judea and Samaria,” its Biblical name, rather than the internationally recognized term “West Bank.” In 2025, the Knesset advanced legislation to formally replace “West Bank” with “Judea and Samaria” in Israeli law, framing it as a recognition of historical Jewish rights. A July vote also saw the Knesset declare Judea and Samaria and the Jordan Valley as “an inseparable part of Eretz Israel,” urging the application of Israeli sovereignty.

Growing Settlement Presence and Displacement

The number of Israeli settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem has grown to over half a million. A U.N. agency reported that since January 2023, more than 6,200 Palestinians have been displaced due to settler attacks and related access restrictions, with 47 communities fully displaced by early July 2026. The ICJ found in 2024 that Israel’s policies—including settlement expansion and the application of Israeli domestic law—amount to annexation of large parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, stating that these actions “entrench its control over the occupied territory.”

International Response and Concerns

The recent normalization efforts have drawn criticism from several international actors. On August 20th, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and other countries urged Israel to retract plans for settlement expansion in the West Bank. Over 100 former British and French diplomats went further, writing a letter expressing concern that Palestine is “being erased in front of the world’s eyes” and calling for stronger action.

The ongoing changes raise serious questions about the future status of the West Bank and the viability of a two-state solution. While Israel maintains its security concerns are paramount, critics argue these policies represent a de facto annexation that undermines international law and prospects for lasting peace.

(With inputs from CounterPunch)

More from the source

Originally published on abcnews.com.np.