Israel Claims More West Bank Land for Settlements
Israel appropriated 2,640 dunams (approximately 652 acres) of land in the West Bank, east of Jerusalem, on Thursday, escalating tensions over settlement expansion in the region. The Civil Administration, a branch of Israel’s Defence Ministry, announced the land would now be part of the Maale Adumim settlement.
This land, previously categorized as “survey land” by the Civil Administration, is undergoing assessment to determine its current use for cultivation or pasture. If found unused, it can be declared state land, opening it up for development. The appropriated tracts were within the municipal territories of the Palestinian towns of Abu Dis and Al-Azariya, yet not registered as private property.
Individuals claiming ownership of this land now face a 45-day period to present their cases in an IDF military court. While the appropriation does not guarantee immediate settlement construction, it significantly increases the likelihood of future development on these lands.
The international community, supporting Palestinian aspirations for statehood in territories captured by Israel in 1967, largely considers the settlements illegal. Israel, however, disputes this, citing historical and security justifications for its claims to the West Bank.
The move by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s religious-nationalist government to designate this land for settlement has potential implications for Israeli relations with the United States. On Feb. 24, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken reaffirmed the position that West Bank settlements violate international law, a stance previously reversed under the Trump administration but now restored, an area of discord between the allies amid Israel’s ongoing conflict with Hamas in Gaza.
Critics, including the Peace Now organization, argue that declaring these plots as state land could advance the contentious E1 plan, aiming to significantly expand the Maale Adumim settlement. Such plans have historically sparked international condemnation and are viewed as detrimental to the prospects of a two-state solution.
