As Israel moves toward de facto annexation but avoids formalizing it, it should not expect the world to treat the settlements as though they were part of Israel.
Israel’s ongoing threats to punish countries that take measures against settlements in the West Bank and goods they produce remind me of expressions that exist in every language to describe an attempt to have it both ways, such as “to hold the rope at both ends,” as we say in Hebrew.
Thus, it was reported last Wednesday that Israel is considering a package of retaliatory steps, should Britain take action against the settlements.
About a week earlier, Israel ordered Dutch representatives to leave the International Coordination Center for Gaza Affairs in Kiryat Gat, in protest against new Dutch legislation banning trade with the settlements.
In so doing, Israel repeatedly sends messages to other countries that measures of this kind will affect the future of their relations with Israel.
However, to use another expression, Israel wants to “have its cake and eat it, too.” Let me explain.
We are approaching 60 years since the Six Day War in 1967. Since then, Israel has controlled territory that it captured from Jordan.
This is not the place to debate who started the war, who has the stronger historical claim to the territory, whether it should be described as occupied or liberated, or whether its inhabitants want to destroy us or to live in peace.
These are all important questions, but they do not negate international law, nor do they replace it.
International law, which binds all states, prohibits the acquisition of territory through the use of force, views occupation as temporary, and does not recognize occupation as a source of sovereignty.
As long as occupation continues, the occupying power has clear obligations toward the local population. Among other things, it is prohibited from transferring parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory.
For decades, therefore, Israel made sure that construction in the territories was subject to authorization by the security establishment, thereby maintaining an administrative distinction between Israel within the Green Line and the territories beyond it.
Recognizing this distinction, Israel has itself signed agreements that extend foreign benefits to institutions inside Israel proper while excluding their counterparts in the territories.
Where is Israel headed?
With the formation of the current government in 2022 and the transfer of responsibility for the Civil Administration to a civilian authority within the Defense Ministry, that distinction has become increasingly blurred.
Other measures have likewise been taken to erase what remains of the Green Line.
In practice, Israel is acting as though it has abandoned the prospect of a political settlement and intends to control the territories indefinitely.
At the same time, it understands that formal annexation would violate international law and would come at a heavy price.
Officially incorporating the West Bank into the State of Israel would formalize a binational reality between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
That would raise fundamental questions about the political status of millions of Palestinians, and put Israel’s Jewish and democratic character into question.
Israel therefore acts as though it can “make an omelet without breaking eggs”: move toward annexation in practice without declaring it. It is then surprised and angered when others recognize the direction it is moving in and refuse to cooperate.
Among them are countries in Europe, Israel’s largest trading partner.
They maintain close relations with us, but are unwilling to ignore steps toward annexation or increasing settler violence against a civilian population, which Israel is legally bound to protect.
Want to annex? By all means. But then Israel must be prepared to bear the consequences.
Don’t want to annex? That, too, is an option. But in that case, we cannot expect the world to treat the settlements in the territories as though they are an integral part of Israel.
Israel cannot have it both ways. It must decide where it is headed, and act upon its decision.
The writer was Israel’s first ambassador to the Baltic states after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, ambassador to South Africa, and congressional liaison officer at the embassy in Washington. She is a graduate of Israel’s National Defense College.