Israel’s government is moving to deepen and formalize its control over the occupied West Bank through a package of administrative and legal changes that officials and critics alike say could accelerate settlement growth and further erode the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) role under the Oslo-era framework.

A policy shift from “facts on the ground” to formal authority

In early February 2026, Israel’s security cabinet approved measures that expand Israeli oversight beyond the settlement blocs and into areas that, on paper, have remained under varying degrees of PA administration (Areas A and B). Reports of the decision describe changes designed to make it easier for Israelis to acquire land, to expand Israeli enforcement reach, and to re-route planning and licensing powers in sensitive areas away from Palestinian institutions.

Israeli ministers backing the moves have framed them as necessary for security and national interests; opponents argue they amount to incremental annexation - creating a “one-way ratchet” in which civilian Israeli governance functions expand inside the territory while the PA’s already-limited authority contracts.

Increased settlement activity through “streamlining”

One core allegation from settlement watchdogs and diplomats is that the new direction is less about a single headline-grabbing settlement announcement and more about changing the machinery: reducing friction in land purchase, registration, and permitting so that construction and infrastructure can move faster and with fewer political chokepoints. Coverage of the cabinet measures points to steps such as opening land registries and easing restrictions around transactions that have historically been constrained by older legal frameworks and by the practical difficulties of verification in disputed areas.

The scale of settlement entrenchment is already substantial. An EU external action service report on 2024 notes that by the end of that year there were 503,732 Israeli settlers in the West Bank and 233,600 in East Jerusalem (about 737,332 total) across 147 settlements and 224 outposts. The same report says 28,872 housing units were advanced through planning/implementation stages in 2024 across the West Bank and East Jerusalem, underscoring how procedural changes - rather than just new declarations - can materially shift realities on the ground.

Transfer of authority: civilian governance inside occupied territory

Alongside construction, the most politically charged element is the transfer or extension of administrative authority - functions typically associated with sovereign governance - into the West Bank. Reporting on the February 2026 measures describes expanded Israeli enforcement and regulatory powers (including around land use and other administrative domains) and steps that reduce the PA’s say in certain planning and licensing decisions, including in highly contested locations.

This sits within a wider pattern highlighted by UN human rights reporting: the transfer of powers over the occupied territory to Israel’s civilian government is described as facilitating settlement consolidation and the steady integration of the West Bank into Israel’s state systems.

Political context: far-right leverage inside the coalition

These moves align with longstanding goals of key figures on Israel’s right flank, who argue openly for expanding Israeli control and reducing the plausibility of a future Palestinian state. Recent reporting quotes senior ministers describing the steps as establishing “de facto sovereignty,” language that has amplified international concerns that the policies are designed to permanently foreclose a two-state outcome.

International response: condemnation, warnings, and legal framing

The reaction from allies and international bodies has been unusually direct. The UK publicly urged Israel to reverse the decision, describing it as a step toward annexation and as incompatible with international law.

In Washington, a White House official said President Donald Trump opposes annexation of the West Bank, emphasizing stability and security considerations - signaling friction even with a generally pro-Israel U.S. posture. EU officials also condemned the latest measures as “another step in the wrong direction,” reflecting a consistent European position that settlement expansion undermines prospects for peace.

On the legal axis, the EU’s 2024 settlements report references the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion that Israel’s continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory is unlawful and should be brought to an end as rapidly as possible - part of the broader international-law framing used by many governments and UN bodies when criticizing settlement policies.

Why it matters: Oslo erosion and the two-state endgame

Taken together, the settlement “acceleration” and the authority transfer are viewed by critics as mutually reinforcing: streamlining enables physical expansion, while civilian governance powers normalize and institutionalize control - making reversals politically and administratively harder. That is why this policy package is being treated internationally not as a routine planning dispute, but as a structural shift with long-term consequences for borders, sovereignty, and the viability of a Palestinian state.