On Tuesday, 14 July 2026, an Israeli Security Cabinet decision that was passed in March was de-classified to reveal the largest settlement plan yet: It approved the establishment of 34 new settlements in the occupied West Bank, allocating further 1.3 billion shekels for expediting the settlement process and the moving of settlers, and an additional 1 billion shekels to develop the needed infrastructure to serve the new settlements and their connectivity to each other.
These settlements are distributed as follows: 4 in the Hebron Hills, 9 in the “Samaria” region, 7 in “Binyamin”, 7 in the Jordan Valley, and 6 in “Gush Etzion”. These 34 approved settlements are in addition to 68 other new settlements, bringing the total number of settlements this government has decided to establish to 104.
Currently, approximately 144 settlements have received approval from both the Israeli government and the Civil Administration, according to figures from Peace Now. This number could increase to 235 settlements if all 103 new settlements approved by the current government receive final approval through the Civil Administration’s planning and approval procedures.
In Bethlehem governorate, the Israeli occupation government approved the establishment of 6 new settlements as part of a broader plan to isolate Bethlehem from its Palestinian surroundings and consolidate a geographically contiguous “Gush Etzion” settlement bloc linked to southern Jerusalem. The planned settlements include “Mitzpei HaHar”, to be established at the site of a former settlement outpost to re-establish and consolidate Israeli presence there; “Gva’ot Adulam”, designed to connect “Gush Etzion” westward to the “Elah Valley” and the “Beit Shemesh” area; “Gad Natan”, south of the settlement bloc, to strengthen settlement continuity toward Hebron; “Ma’ale Arugot”, intended to link the western and eastern parts of “Gush Etzion”; “Tan”, aimed at creating continuous settlement presence across the eastern part of the bloc by linking the “Tekoa” settlement area and surrounding settlements and outposts to the Jordan Valley; and “Ma’alot Dargot”, east of “Tekoa”, intended to connect “Gush Etzion” with the Dead Sea region. Together, these settlements are designed to establish uninterrupted territorial continuity across the “Gush Etzion” bloc, further fragmenting the Palestinian landscape and reinforcing Israeli control over strategic areas in the southern West Bank. The belt of new settlements imposes a suffocating stranglehold, preventing the urban expansion of the city and surrounding towns like Beit Jala and Beit Sahour. This settlement expansion deprives Bethlehem of vital land needed to build hospitals, schools, and housing projects to accommodate natural population growth, forcing residents to live in overcrowded enclaves.
Importantly, the Israeli government allocated 1 billion shekels for the development of road networks, water and electricity infrastructure, and sewage systems to serve the new settlements, effectively transforming them from isolated residential enclaves into an integrated civilian system connected to Israeli state institutions. Israeli Energy Minister Eli Cohen and Yossi Dagan, head of the “Samaria Regional Council’ in the West Bank, announced the establishment of a professional task force to advance the construction of water and electricity networks for the new settlements approved by the government in previous rounds of approvals.
Another 1.3 billion shekels were allocated for the purpose of expediting the settlement process by the end of 2026, which is interpreted to encourage and facilitate moving in settlers in the new settlements, constituting a grave breach and a war crime under international legal frameworks.
These developments reflect another qualitative shift in Israel’s settlement policy. Previous Israeli governments did advance relentless settlement expansion, although they generally refrained from granting large-scale official approval for new settlements to avoid international pressure. However, with pervasive impunity, the current government has accelerated the approval process, “legalized” settlement outposts, and integrated them into Israel’s official planning and infrastructure systems.
Economically, these settlements aim to fragment what remains of Bethlehem’s land, threatening the agricultural sector upon which the city’s rural areas depend. They further restrict residents’ access to their land and create more bypass roads that devour more fertile land, preventing farmers from cultivating their fields and exacerbating unemployment rates in the region, as Israel follows a consistent pattern that begins with a quiet encroachment on land by establishing military or agricultural outposts on vast areas with a minimal number of settlers, while denying Palestinians access. This phase quickly progresses to the construction of caravans and mobile homes erected by settlers under the protection of the Israeli army, which then transform into solid concrete blocks through the installation of utilities such as water and electricity.
These policies exemplify a tool of de facto annexation, whereby Israel gradually consolidates control over occupied territory by altering realities on the ground without formally declaring annexation. This process effectively incorporates large parts of the occupied West Bank into Israel’s planning, infrastructure, and administrative systems, while continuing to subject the Palestinian population to a separate regime of military and administrative restrictions. As part of the program launched by Dagan in 2022, Kohen and Dagan stated that the aim is to increase the number of Israelis settlers residing in the northern West Bank alone to one million people by 2050.
Legal Analysis Framework
The establishment of 34 new settlements in the occupied West Bank must be examined within the broader legal context of Israel’s prolonged occupation of Palestinian territory and the obligations arising from it under international law. In its 2024 Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) affirmed that Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful due to its prolonged nature, the manner in which Israel exercises its control, and its impact on the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. The Court emphasized that an occupying Power cannot acquire sovereignty over occupied territory through prolonged control, nor may it implement policies aimed at permanently altering the demographic composition, territorial integrity, or legal status of the occupied territory. The Court further reaffirmed the illegality of Israeli settlements established in the West Bank. The continued Israeli presence in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, has been recognized by the international community as a belligerent occupation governed by the rules of international humanitarian law, which does not grant the occupying Power any sovereignty over the occupied territory.
Within this legal framework, the settlement enterprise represents one of the primary mechanisms through which the nature of the occupation has been transformed from a temporary situation into a system based on permanent territorial control. The establishment and expansion of Israeli settlements, the transfer of Israeli civilians into occupied territory, and the development of permanent civilian infrastructure have progressively altered the demographic and geographic character of the West Bank. Today, more than 700,000 Israeli settlers live among approximately 2.7 million Palestinians in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 prohibits the occupying Power from transferring parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. This prohibition reflects a fundamental principle of the law of occupation: the occupying Power must administer the occupied territory temporarily and may not undertake measures aimed at altering its demographic composition or creating permanent claims of sovereignty over it. Accordingly, the establishment of new settlements, alongside the legalization of existing settlement outposts and their integration into Israeli state infrastructure, constitutes a direct challenge to these legal obligations.
The legal significance of the current settlement expansion extends beyond the establishment of individual residential communities. It involves the creation of integrated settlement blocs, such as the “Gush Etzion” bloc, through networks of roads, water systems, electricity infrastructure, and administrative structures that connect these settlements to Israel’s civilian system while fragmenting Palestinian territorial contiguity. These practices contribute to the creation of what the ICJ has identified as irreversible facts on the ground, undermining the Palestinian people’s ability to exercise their right to self-determination.
The consequences of settlement expansion are also directly linked to violations of fundamental Palestinian human rights. By restricting access to land, limiting urban development, and reshaping patterns of movement and resource allocation, settlement policies affect Palestinians’ rights to property, housing, livelihood, and development, all of which are protected under international human rights law, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). In this context, settlement expansion cannot be viewed merely as an urban planning or housing policy; rather, it constitutes a state-driven process aimed at restructuring occupied territory in a manner that prioritizes the rights and interests of the population transferred from the occupying State over those of the protected Palestinian population.
Accordingly, the approval of 34 new settlements and the expansion of settlement blocs throughout the West Bank must be understood as part of a broader policy aimed at consolidating territorial control and advancing de facto annexation. By entrenching Israeli civilian presence and its associated infrastructure within occupied territory, these measures deepen the fragmentation of Palestinian land, reinforce prolonged occupation, and undermine the possibility of the Palestinian people exercising their right to self-determination in accordance with international law.