Israel is planning an invasion and the imposition of its sovereignty

 For weeks, the Israeli political arena has been marked by intense threats to impose Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza Strip, presented under various pretexts and justifications.

 For some, the imposition of sovereignty over the West Bank, or a large part of it, constitutes the logical Zionist response to the international political tsunami of recognition of Palestine and the insistence on a two-state solution.

 For others, it is a clear act that embodies the Zionist vision, based on the claim of a people's return to their land, considered legitimate by divine promise, and which would not require further justification.

 Naturally, between these two extremes, there are those who believe that imposing sovereignty over areas of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is merely an expression of Israel's need for "security" through buffer zones, or simply a "price" to be paid by anyone who tries to attack the Jewish state.

 Although the idea of ​​imposing sovereignty over the largest possible area—not only Palestine, but also any Arab territory—worried the founding Zionists from the beginning of their movement, the pragmatists among them operated on the principle of accepting what was available and waiting for the opportunity to expand later.

 This became clearly evident in the conflict between the supporters of Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion, on the one hand, and those of Ze'ev Jabotinsky, on the other, during the initial partition between Palestine and the Emirate of Transjordan. Jabotinsky rejected the exclusion of Transjordan from the Jewish "national home," restricting the issue to Western Palestine.

 The dispute also intensified after the partition plan was approved in 1947. While parts of the Zionist right and left rejected the proposal, Ben-Gurion and his supporters defended it, based on a principle he summarized in the phrase: "The Negev will not escape us."

 In 1956, after the occupation of the Gaza Strip and Sinai, Ben-Gurion, according to secret Israeli documents, ordered the annexation of the conquered territories, considering them lands of the "Third Kingdom of Israel".

 This decision was recorded in a memorandum sent to the then Chief of Staff, Moshe Dayan, which envisioned a quadrupling of Israeli territory. However, Ben-Gurion quickly revoked this measure under international pressure.

 Since the Israeli victory in the 1967 war, the conflict has intensified between those who advocated for the imposition of sovereignty over the occupied Palestinian territories and those who advocated for the negotiation of their status. Various schemes were devised to facilitate this process, including plans for the displacement of Palestinians or attempts to establish what became known as a "functional division" with Jordan.

 However, after the rise of the right-wing government to power in 1977, the scenario began to change, especially regarding the expansion of settlements and attempts to prevent any political formula that would revoke Israeli control over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. At best, Israel—under the leadership of Menachem Begin—accepted the idea of ​​Palestinian autonomy, but without any concept of sovereignty.

 The issue of sovereignty remained central for Israel in all negotiations with Egypt and other countries. Begin even went so far as to declare the imposition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights in Syria, disregarding the position of the international community.

 However, in any case, the stronger the right wing becomes in Israel, the greater the calls for the imposition of sovereignty and the elimination of the two-state solution.

 The right wing reached the peak of its power with the formation of the current governing coalition, led by Benjamin Netanyahu—wanted by the International Criminal Court—and including Smotrich, Ben-Gvir, Shas, and the ultra-Orthodox parties. This alliance became known as the "Full Right Coalition."

 With Smotrich and Ben-Gvir assuming their highest government positions, under Netanyahu's encouragement and approval, the sovereignty agreement was consolidated. The dispute no longer revolves around the principle of imposing sovereignty, but rather when, where, and how it will be implemented.

 Threats clash with reality.

 A few days ago, the situation reached a peak. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided to hold a final cabinet meeting to discuss the issue of imposing sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Many attended to express their positions, already publicly stated in the extensive debates that dragged on for months.

 Many believed that, given the regional and international circumstances, Israel was closer to asserting its sovereignty. The right-wing government had already made, on several occasions, unfulfilled promises regarding the application of sovereignty in the West Bank.

 This time, it was believed that a favorable political conjuncture might have emerged. Even before the official cabinet meeting, Netanyahu had already convened a political forum, which was attended by several leaders.

 According to Yedioth Ahronoth, the forum included, in addition to Netanyahu, his close advisor, Minister Ron Dermer — responsible for relations with the United States and the Gulf countries —; Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar; and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.

 The head of the National Security Council, Tzachi Hanegbi, and the Cabinet Secretary, Yossi Fox, also participated in the meeting. During the discussion, Dermer expressed his support for the measure, stating: “There will be sovereignty in Judea and Samaria, and the question is: over which part?”

 Two weeks earlier, at another expanded ministerial meeting, Dermer had already expressed a similar position, after ministers Struck, Smotrich, and Levin raised the issue and pressed for the measure to be implemented even before the UN General Assembly in September, when several countries intend to recognize a Palestinian state.

 At the forum, ministers discussed whether sovereignty should apply only to settlement blocs, to all settlements, to the entire Area C, or perhaps only to open areas or the Jordan Valley.

 Another question raised was whether this measure should be promoted as a reaction to the recognition of a Palestinian state or even before that, as a preventive measure.

 During the meeting, Minister Sa'ar analyzed Israel's political situation on the international stage and highlighted the existence of European opposition to the measure, which could lead to a further deterioration in relations between Israel and European countries. He made this observation from a technical standpoint, regardless of his principled position on the issue of sovereignty.

 Minister Smotrich has long been pushing for this issue to be taken forward, and his associates in the Ministry of Defence's Settlements Administration have prepared the necessary technical infrastructure, including maps and field surveys, to make the initiative feasible.

 Indeed, when Smotrich considers the possibility of dissolving the government—for example, as a result of a potential agreement with Hamas—he also sees an opportunity to assert sovereignty.

 The Israeli right wing, in all its segments, anticipated the situation and approved, before the Knesset recess, a resolution with a majority of 71 members, determining the imposition of Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank.

 Although Netanyahu has always preferred to adopt a declarative tone on all issues related to sovereignty, avoiding direct involvement in international affairs, he has sought, through the Knesset resolution and his visits to settlements in the West Bank, to encourage the imposition of sovereignty in a general way, without specificity or compromise.

 Many believe that if Netanyahu wants to remain active in the political arena and contest the next elections, the imposition of sovereignty will be one of his most relevant campaign promises.

 United States on stage

 Although the official position of the United States, prior to the Trump administration, had always rejected the imposition of Israeli sovereignty—leaving the issue to be resolved through negotiations—the dominance of Christian Zionism during the Trump administration modified that stance.

 Trump and his ministers believe that imposing sovereignty is a decision that rests exclusively with Israel, without US involvement. This, obviously, violates international law and legitimacy, and will likely generate acute conflicts between Israel and its closest Arab neighbors.

 It is also evident that the imposition of sovereignty contradicts even the so-called Abraham Accords, sponsored by Trump, which included a promise between the US and Israel not to implement any annexations in the West Bank.

 A few days ago, almost simultaneously with the Israeli meeting to discuss the imposition of sovereignty, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared: “What you are seeing now regarding the West Bank and annexation is not definitive — it is something under discussion between various parties in Israel, and I do not intend to express my opinion at this time.”

 Last month, the US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, told the Washington Post that Israeli annexation would be “an Israeli decision.” He explained: “October 7th changed everything.”

 Thus, the United States allowed Israel to act as it pleased, not only in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, but throughout the entire Arab region. This is the true meaning of the statement by the US envoy to Syria and Lebanon, Tom Barak, who justified the Israeli change even regarding the Sykes-Picot border.

 It is evident that the United States' silence on the matter created the impression in Israel that the Hebrew state had lost its "sovereign," capable of controlling its actions and preventing it from adopting the "the master of the house has gone mad" approach.

 Perhaps that is why Netanyahu, after calling a government meeting to officially discuss the imposition of sovereignty, was forced to remove the item from the agenda just hours before the meeting. Ministers even joked that the meeting was only intended to discuss the actions of young settlers in the West Bank hills.

 Israeli radicalization reached its peak when Finance Minister Smotrich urged Netanyahu to impose sovereignty over at least 82% of the West Bank territory, leaving only 18% for the Palestinians. He stated: “The maximum area — the minimum number of Arabs.”

 Smotrich added: “The broad consensus on sovereignty is based on the understanding that it is necessary to prevent any existential threat from infiltrating our territory. The time has come to apply Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria and put an end to the division of this small territory.”

 He continued: “The political role of sovereignty is to ensure that no Arab terrorist state is established. The establishment of a Palestinian state must be prevented. Therefore, no settlement blocs, no Area C, and no partial sovereignty. All of this only leaves the rest of the territory to the enemy, allowing them to establish a state that would place us within the borders of Auschwitz.”

 The first step in this policy advocated by Smotrich was the announcement of construction in the E1 area, considered vital for territorial contiguity between the various Palestinian territories.

 Many have observed that if Netanyahu decides not to restrain his natural and extremist partners, he will become, in their eyes, the gravedigger of Israeli-Arab relations, which Israeli statesmen and diplomats have been trying to foster throughout the 76 years of the State of Israel's existence.

 And it didn't stop there: he recently presented his comprehensive plan for occupation, annexation, and swift victory through war, siege, famine, and displacement. Smotrich doesn't just speak for himself; he expresses the deepest strands of the entire Israeli right wing, which encounters no significant resistance within Israeli society itself.

 The plan calls for the annexation of the Gaza Strip and the expulsion of its inhabitants. Smotrich states that Netanyahu “understands the logic of the plan” and is working to implement it.

 Smotrich's plan includes the complete elimination of the idea of ​​a Palestinian state, based on the premise that “the approval of construction plans in E1 buries the idea of ​​a Palestinian state and gives continuity to the numerous actions we are leading on the ground as part of the imposition of the de facto sovereignty plan, initiated with the formation of the government. After decades of international pressure and freezes, we are violating agreements and linking Ma'ale Adumim to Jerusalem. This is Zionism in its most glamorous form: building, colonizing, and strengthening our sovereignty over the Land of Israel.”