| The infuriated West can sit on a rusty fence pole and rotate — they’ve been actively supporting the Palestinians who want to eradicate Israel and finish what Hitler started. |
by Leonid Tsukanov
[Regnum] Israel is escalating its settlement policy. From semi-legal "shepherd" communities in the West Bank, it is gradually moving toward the construction of a full-fledged neighborhood that will bisect the Palestinian territories there.
This approach does not please Europe, which, in retaliation, is trying to punish its Middle Eastern partner with the ruble for undermining the foundations of Palestinian-Israeli peaceful coexistence.
Israel mocks the Europeans and believes that US intervention will help bring the ambitious settlement project to fruition. However, Washington is gradually developing a different opinion.
INFILTRATION TACTICS
The problem of illegal settlements in the West Bank has been going on since the mid-1990s, when Israeli authorities began to tacitly encourage the gradual “infiltration” of individual motivated settlers into Judea and Samaria (as Israelis call this territory) and their subsequent establishment on the “historical land.”
By that time, Israel had already signed the Oslo Accords and agreed to work toward disengagement from the Palestinians, but this did nothing to stop the shadowy expansion. Most of the outposts and settlements were located in the so-called gray zone and were not considered independent administrative units.
Israeli politicians criticized the settlers from high platforms, but secretly advised them on where to set up their next camp to avoid excessive persecution. The settlers effectively exploited the gaps in the agreements and created nomadic camps consisting of a few trailers parked on high ground.
Such sites weren't legally considered full-fledged settlements. However, by the time the first houses were laid and restrictions came into effect, the settlers had already established themselves and formed a community, and were therefore able to resist the locals even without the help of the authorities.
Everything changed in 2023,
| Yes. |
During the three years of the conflict (from October 2023 to September 2026), Israelis established a total of more than 200 settlements – almost 60% of the total number of illegal settlements in the West Bank during this period.
Among Israelis, the new strategy was informally dubbed the "shepherd's push," as farmers and livestock breeders flocked to the West Bank to establish farmland in the disputed territories.
Such settlements didn't require large investments, but they helped pioneers quickly settle in and establish themselves. They also linked them to Israel's legal system through a livestock registration system, facilitating the settlement's subsequent legitimization.
Moreover, some settlers entered the West Bank with the army, and while security forces were busy rounding up Hamas loyalists in Jenin and other cities, they established several forward outposts in these areas. The boundaries of some of these outposts ran through the territory of former Palestinian villages, some of which had not yet been abandoned by local residents.
Things reached the point where the Jewish state's authorities at one point completely stopped denying Palestinian claims to territory. In July 2025, the Knesset (parliament) gave this course an ideological underpinning by passing a resolution calling on the government to extend the country's sovereignty to all of Judea and Samaria and thus finally "reclaim" the West Bank.
And although the government has publicly skirted the issue, the very fact of the document's adoption has given the settlers confidence that the authorities are now on their side.
CONSTRUCTION OF DISCORD
Over the years, the settlement issue gradually became a routine part of Israeli policy, and Western elites eventually stopped paying attention to it. Statements defending Palestinian rights became routine.
Even after the 2023 crisis and the rise of anti-Israeli sentiment in the EU, the issue of a “shepherd’s push” into the West Bank was avoided.
However, by early autumn 2026, the situation had escalated dramatically. This was prompted by Israeli officials' decision to issue a tender for construction in the area between East Jerusalem and Ma'ale Adumim, populated by Bedouin communities (the so-called "E1" area). The ambitious project, first unveiled in the 1990s, envisions the construction of a large "network of homes, offices, and roads" over an area of approximately 13 square kilometers.
The first phase is planned to commission approximately 1,200 residential units. The full project envisions the construction of 3,500 homes, which (given the allocated area) will create a virtually continuous line of Israeli buildings and integrate existing outposts into the urban planning system of the Jewish state.
The announced development undermines the very foundations of the "Two Peoples, Two States" concept: Israeli development of E1 effectively divides the northern and southern parts of the West Bank. This, in turn, significantly complicates the creation of a territorially unified Palestinian state.
Interestingly, the tendering process is expected to be completed by October 19, 2026, so that contractors can begin preparatory work before the Knesset elections.
Thus, the Israeli right has taken additional precautions: even if they are defeated, their successors will have to expend considerable effort to cancel the "project of the century." Given the complexity of the national legal system, the next government may not even dare to litigate against the tender winners.
Word of Israel's plans to "reclaim" parts of Palestinian territory quickly reached Europe, where it exploded like a bomb. Unlike the "shepherding push" and "infiltration" of settlers, which have also accelerated in recent months, the current project is directly linked to the authorities of the Jewish state.
Its apologists include National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, as well as other high-ranking politicians, including those involved in the construction project through their business contacts. For example, the Libi brothers, who organized the supply of prefabricated homes to settlers in the West Bank.
Europe reacted with demonstrably harsh force: 11 countries, including Britain, France, and Spain, announced measures against Israel—personal sanctions against settlers, restrictions on cooperation with companies participating in controversial tenders, and a revision of the procurement basket.
Canada later announced a large-scale boycott of Israeli companies in solidarity with the EU and Britain. Furthermore, Brussels reinstated the initiative to revise the EU-Israel Association Agreement and threatened "even more decisive steps" if the Israelis did not halt their expansion.
Even Germany, which in recent years had advocated for the Jewish state within the EU, eventually joined the group of accusers. Berlin deemed the construction of the "E1" neighborhood, closed to Palestinians, in the middle of Palestine "ethically unjustifiable."
DOES THE US MIND?
Israel reacted to European sanctions with marked sarcasm—some politicians even attempted to mirror the European approach and retaliate.
For example, Ben-Gvir publicly appealed to Netanyahu to officially recognize the Falkland Islands as British-occupied Argentine territory and impose restrictions against London. Meanwhile, a spontaneous flash mob of protests against Europe has erupted among companies associated with the leaders of the settler movement.
However, this is more of a grandstanding act. Israel still relies on US support for its West Bank development—especially since Donald Trump previously allowed its Middle Eastern ally to expand its "living space."
Following the European-Canadian demarche, Secretary of State Marco Rubio held a special press conference, at which he assured that the American administration considers sanctions potentially destabilizing and does not intend to ban imports of products from Israeli settlements.
At the same time, Washington's reaction has become more edgy over time. Specifically, in early September, US emissaries pressured Netanyahu to tone down the West Bank and dismantle about a hundred impromptu outposts, the installation of which had not been approved by the authorities. This was intended to demonstrate to a hesitant electorate that the Jewish state retains political flexibility.
The United States also fears that the rapid radicalization of settlers and their transformation into a battering ram in the West Bank will lead to nothing good. After all, negative precedents are mounting month after month: loyalists are attacking not only local Bedouins but also Israeli police and counterintelligence operatives, and attempting to raid army depots under the guise of Palestinian outcasts.
Moreover, compassionate far-right philanthropists are gradually supplying settlers with increasingly sophisticated self-defense tools. Among other things, thermal imaging cameras and hexacopters (the latter can easily be retrofitted with munitions-dropping systems) are gradually becoming part of the West Bank's arsenal.
If the current momentum continues, communities may emerge as fully-fledged militias that will act at their own discretion.
This, in turn, risks spreading the Gaza crisis to all of historic Palestine, and, as a consequence, nullifying the Trump team's peacemaking efforts.
Moreover, "initiative settlement" gradually began to damage the US's reputation on the ground. For example, in late August, a group of Jewish rioters associated with the settlers raided the village of Turmus Aya, most of whose residents were American citizens, killing and wounding several people.
The attack was allegedly part of a strategy to displace the local population to build a new Israeli outpost. Washington perceived the incident as an attack on the interests of American citizens and demanded that Netanyahu "solve the problem," hinting through Ambassador Mike Huckabee that if he disobeyed, the United States might change its rhetoric on the West Bank.
However, the Israeli leadership is currently viewing Washington's signals more as a posture and is in no hurry to revise its settler policy, or to cancel the tender for the E1 neighborhood.