Intissar Rajabany

There are moments when reality leaves no room for interpretation. The cabinet’s decision of April 1, made in the midst of the war with Iran, is precisely such a moment. While the Israeli public is preoccupied with existential threats and security distractions, the government chose to approve the establishment of 34 new settlements in the West Bank. It is difficult not to see this as a cynical use of war as a smokescreen, intended to create facts on the ground in preparation for future annexation. Anyone still struggling to grasp the priorities need only examine the details: although most of the planned settlements are located within established settlement blocs, some are situated in northern Samaria—an area notably characterized by the absence of settlements. This indicates not merely expansion, but a deliberate move into new territories aimed at reshaping the geographic and political reality on the ground. Equally troubling is the fact that 32 of the 34 settlements are planned outside the route of the existing security barrier. This exposes the gap between the security rationale long presented to the public and the reality on the ground. If the barrier was built to ensure security, why insist on expanding settlement activity beyond it? The answer is clear: ideology, not security, lies at the heart of this policy. It should also be emphasized that these locations remain approximate, as no official map has been published and no final coordinates have been determined. This ambiguity is hardly incidental; it enables the advancement of far-reaching policies away from public scrutiny, avoiding real-time criticism. Thus, while soldiers fight on the front lines and Israeli society bears the burden of war, the conflict is being exploited to shape an irreversible reality on the ground. This decision is not a security measure but a unilateral political move—one that deepens the conflict and distances any prospect of a future agreement. For those seeking proof that war is also being used as a political instrument, it appears plainly in this cabinet decision.

« Un jour viendra où la France, délivrée et nettoyée, renverra ce butin à la Chine pillée. » Ce jour, qu’appelait Victor Hugo de ses vœux en 1861, est venu. 🇫🇷Cette loi vient inscrire dans notre droit un cadre clair, cohérent et précis pour la restitution des biens culturels.