Global & US Headlines
Israeli Security Cabinet Scraps Jordan-era Land Law, Tightens Administrative Grip on West Bank
On 9 Feb 2026, Netanyahu’s five-member security cabinet adopted regulations that let any Israeli buy West Bank land and shifted key permit powers in Hebron from the Palestinian Authority to Israel, signalling a concrete step toward de-facto annexation.
Focusing Facts
- The decision repeals Jordanian Law 40 (in force since 1953), makes West Bank land registries public, and removes the Civil Administration permit previously required for Jewish purchases.
- Building-permit authority for the Hebron settlement bloc—including Rachel’s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs—was transferred from the Palestinian municipality to Israel’s Civil Administration.
- Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich declared the aim was to “kill the idea of a Palestinian state,” while U.S. President Trump, ahead of a 12 Feb White House meeting with Netanyahu, reiterated he would not “allow” formal annexation.
Context
Israel has repeatedly expanded control through incremental legal tweaks—much like the 1980 Jerusalem Law that normalised earlier ‘temporary’ occupation or France’s 1834 decree integrating Algeria—turning facts on the ground into law. This move accelerates a long trend that began with the 1967 occupation and the post-1993 Oslo carve-up: creeping civil administration replacement of military rule, economic strangulation of the PA, and settlement entrenchment from 6,000 settlers in 1977 to 500,000+ today. By hollowing out Oslo’s Area A autonomy and tying land markets to Israel, the cabinet mirrors Russia’s gradual passportisation in Abkhazia (2002-2008) before recognition—small bureaucratic acts that culminate in sovereignty claims. Over a 100-year horizon, such steps either lock in a one-state reality with unequal citizenship—risking the fate of South Africa’s apartheid regime (1948-1994)—or force an eventual rights-based binational arrangement. The immediate significance lies less in headlines than in how legal registries, permit offices, and labour restrictions quietly redraw borders, deepen Palestinian economic dependency, and test whether outside powers will convert rhetorical opposition into material consequences.
Perspectives
Arab and Islamic media and organisations
e.g., AhlulBayt News Agency, OIC statements, Saudi Gazette — Say the new Israeli cabinet resolutions amount to an illegal land-grab and war crime that threatens Palestinian existence and must be met with united resistance and diplomatic isolation of Israel. Echoes Hamas and other Palestinian actors’ rhetoric, employs emotive language and leaves out any Israeli security rationale, reflecting the outlets’ political and religious alignment with the Palestinian cause.
Western liberal media
e.g., The Guardian, Hurriyet Daily News, The Independent — Present the measures as a serious breach of international law that erodes prospects for a two-state solution, spotlighting wide international condemnation from the UN, Arab states and European governments. Prioritises diplomatic criticisms and human-rights framing while giving scant voice to Israeli nationalist arguments, implicitly treating the two-state paradigm as the default solution.
Israeli centrist media
e.g., The Times of Israel — Emphasises Washington’s reiterated opposition to annexation and the domestic political manoeuvring behind Netanyahu’s West Bank steps, underscoring possible fallout for US-Israel relations and regional stability. Focuses on strategic and political implications rather than legal or moral ones, which can normalise incremental annexation as ordinary policy debate and minimise Palestinian perspectives.