Israel’s West Bank plans highlight callous drive into a one-state future

The announcement received relatively limited attention in Israel, where focus is on the war in Gaza and amid countless internal divisions, but the international arena responded with sharp condemnation, including from countries friendly to Israel.

Actions and statements of this kind regarding the West Bank suggest that the impending international tsunami, which is expected to peak with broad recognition of a Palestinian State at the UN General Assembly in September, will not only materialize but do so with great force, without Israel having the ability to stop it.

The main challenge is not the symbolic announcements themselves, but the resulting restrictions on the economy and scientific and academic cooperation, whose early signs were already emerging and are expected to affect the lives of all Israelis.

Israeli decision-makers tend to automatically dismiss the growing international pressure, such as bans on ministers and Knesset members entering certain Western countries, manifestations of antisemitism, or displays of sympathy or leniency toward extremism and terrorism.

While all of these factors exist, they are not the main story behind the current “tsunami.” That stems from a deep and genuine disagreement among the majority of countries worldwide with Israel’s current approach to the Palestinian issue

Israeli citizens are also ill-informed and do not receive clear answers from the Prime Minister, whose stance ranges from a maximalist approach, for example, when he warmly embraced a pendant depicting “Greater Israel,” including parts of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, to a relatively softened position he displayed during his recent Washington visit, where he vaguely mentioned the possibility of Palestinian self-rule.

The assertion that international criticism stems from antisemitism or hatred of Israel is intended to instill in Israelis the sense that the attack is collective, to rally support around the leadership, and to shield controversial domestic decisions and positions that contradict the views of a significant portion of the public.

In the West Bank, like in Gaza, the position of one political party in the coalition has effectively become the agenda of the entire government. It is unclear what the position of the ruling Likud is on the matter and how it differs from Smotrich’s. The Finance Minister himself has argued since the beginning of the war that there was a historic opportunity to alter the DNA of the West Bank through settlement expansion, aiming to reach a point of no return where, even if a right-wing government falls, there would no longer be a possibility to for any separation from the Palestinians, in the future.

What is happening now in the West Bank offers a glimpse of what may come in Gaza: a dramatic shift promoted by a minority, cloaking its ideological vision in the guise of a “pragmatic strategy” and “lessons from October 7,” enabled by absurd political circumstances. All this occurs without consulting Israelis, who do not understand the dramatic consequences this may have on the character of the state, its relations with the world, and daily life.

And so, under the radar, a new reality is taking shape in the West Bank based on two fundamental assumptions. The first is that Washington will always stand by Israel and support it, even if annexation measures are taken there and in Gaza. In doing so, Israel is effectively narrowing its own diplomatic maneuvering space, while straining relations with key Western countries (as seen with France and Australia), and of course, not accounting for the volatility characteristic of the Trump presidency, or the possibility that future presidents may adopt an entirely different policy.

The guiding premise is that there is no need to consider global public opinion and that it is acceptable to endure international criticism in exchange for realizing the vision of a Greater Israel. All of this is framed using biblical concepts such as the doctrine of Joshua ben-Nun or the eradication of Amalek, which clash with Israel’s established core values and raise international concern about the transformation taking place in the country’s character.

What is more concerning is the accelerated move toward a one-state solution that is supported by many within the government, yet is largely unknown to the public. This was the central goal in the 2017 plan published by Smotrich. Under this plan, a single entity would exist between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River, encompassing two populations of roughly equal size but with different citizenship statuses. This poses a direct threat to the Zionist vision: a routine of “Balkan-style” conflict, international isolation due to an apartheid-like situation, and above all, a fragile demographic balance.

These dramatic changes are being met with a strange quiet from the Palestinians, far removed from the strategic deterrence warnings about a potential third Intifada or the collapse of the Palestinian Authority cited by security officials over the past decade. This stems from a dual sense of despair: both over the prospects for a political settlement and over Palestinian leadership. As a result, support for the one-state idea is growing in the West Bank, particularly among the younger generation, provided it comes with full citizenship, including voting rights.

Dr. Michael Milshtein is director of the Palestinian Studies Forum in Tel Aviv University’s Moshe Dayan Center.