With the approaching Israeli Knesset elections, scheduled for 27 October 2026, various Israeli parties’ statements, coupled with developments on the ground, indicate that the future of the West Bank, and the nature of Israeli control over it, have become central to political and electoral calculations. While elections in many parts of the world are typically preceded by competing electoral programmes focused on internal economic, social, and institutional reforms, in Israeli elections, the key dimension of political competition is centered on how to deepen Israel’s unlawful control of occupied territory and oppress and displace its people, in a manner that would entrench facts on the ground, effectively making the de facto annexation of, or the exercise of Israeli sovereignty over, parts of the West Bank more firmly established and more difficult to reverse.
In the period leading up to the elections, the current Israeli government has accelerated a series of measures aimed at strengthening Israeli control over the West Bank, including the expansion of settlements and settlement outposts, the transfer of powers from the military administration to Israeli civilian institutions, and the expansion of control over land, alongside an escalation in attacks and the forcible displacement of Palestinian communities. In this sense, the electoral period warrants close legal monitoring and assessment, not only because it will determine the composition of the next government, but also because political and policy developments during this period are unfolding alongside the creation and entrenchment of realities on the ground before voters go to the polls.
Elections As an Ongoing Process Rather Than a Single Electoral Event
In recent years, and with increasing intensity since 2023, Israeli occupation authorities have advanced measures contributing to the expansion and consolidation of Israeli control over the West Bank. These have included the establishment and expansion of settlements and outposts, the appropriation and allocation of Palestinian land, the development of bypass roads and related infrastructure, the expansion of Israeli control in Area C and recently in Area B and A, and measures initiating land registration and transactions involving land in the occupied West Bank, signalling Israel’s direct sovereignty of occupied territory, in a stark contradiction of international law. This process has accelerated in the period leading up to the 2026 elections. In August 2026, the United Nations reported continued high levels of settlement activity. The Israeli government has also allocated approximately NIS 1.3 billion for projects associated with new settlements in the West Bank.
The next government will inherit a set of established arrangements that can either be maintained, modified, or expanded. The electoral process consequently operates within a reality that has already been partially reshaped. Settlements and outposts have been established or expanded; infrastructure has been developed; land and planning arrangements have been altered; and additional administrative responsibilities have been transferred to civilian institutions. Even assuming that a future Israeli government would be ‘less extreme’, these measures may constrain the policy space available to any future Israeli government by creating established material and institutional arrangements.
The relationship between electoral politics and these developments can therefore be understood as an ongoing process rather than a single electoral event. Political constituencies may influence party positions; government policies may create new realities on the ground; and those realities may subsequently become part of political debates concerning whether they should be maintained, modified, or expanded.
This creates a potential cycle in which political support for settlement expansion contributes to policy decisions; those decisions create new territorial and institutional realities; the resulting realities become increasingly embedded in governance and infrastructure; and their reversal may consequently become more politically and practically difficult.
Disagreement over Means, Not over Control
Israeli political parties differ in their positions on the Palestinian Authority, settlement policy, security arrangements, economic relations, and the future political status of the West Bank. The current governing coalition, particularly its religious-nationalist and settlement-oriented components, has pursued an explicit expansion of settlements and Israeli control over parts of the West Bank.
Opposition parties and political actors have adopted different approaches to these issues. Some have expressed greater willingness to preserve or strengthen the Palestinian Authority, restore or transfer certain Palestinian revenues, or maintain particular civilian and security arrangements. Other political actors have supported different forms of territorial or administrative control.
These differences exist, but they should not be reduced to a simple binary between “annexation” and “no annexation.” The Israeli political disagreement is over how the West Bank is administered now and what modality of administration is to be applied in the future, instead of ending the unlawful Israeli control over the territory it occupies or establishing a fully sovereign Palestinian state.
The political approaches under discussion may range from formal annexation of parts of the West Bank, to the further expansion of civilian and security control without a formal declaration of annexation, to continued settlement expansion and infrastructure development, or to maintaining the Palestinian Authority within a limited sphere of self-government while Israel retains extensive control over territory, movement, security, planning, and other areas of governance.
These approaches are not legally or politically equivalent. Nor should they be treated as interchangeable. However, examining them comparatively is important because the electoral debate may concern different modalities of managing, and expanding, the existing structure of control rather than a uniform choice between maintaining and ending that structure.
Legal Framework and Analysis
The legal assessment of the 2026 Israeli elections and their implications for the West Bank must be grounded first in the status of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as Occupied Palestinian Territory (oPt) and in the obligations arising under international humanitarian law and international human rights law. As an occupying Power, Israel does not acquire sovereignty over the occupied territory, and the law of occupation requires the exercise of authority to remain consistent with the temporary nature of occupation and the protection of the civilian population. The prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force and the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination are also central to this framework.
The International Court of Justice’s Advisory (ICJ) Opinion of 19 July 2024 provides the principal legal framework for assessing the cumulative effect of Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Court found that Israel’s settlement policy, the associated infrastructure, the extension of Israeli law and administrative powers, and other measures have entrenched Israeli control, particularly in East Jerusalem and Area C, and have created effects intended to remain in place indefinitely. The Court concluded that these policies and practices amount to the annexation of large parts of the oPt and obstruct the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. It further concluded that Israel’s continued presence in the oPt is unlawful and that Israel must bring that presence to an end as rapidly as possible.
This framework is important for assessing developments in the 2026 elections. The relevant legal question is not whether each individual settlement decision, planning measure, land arrangement, or transfer of administrative authority constitutes annexation in isolation. Rather, these measures must be assessed in light of their cumulative effect on territorial integrity, the exercise of Palestinian self-determination, and the permanence of Israeli control. This approach is consistent with the Court’s assessment of policies and practices collectively rather than as isolated measures.
The legal concern therefore extends beyond the formal declaration of annexation to measures that alter land, planning, infrastructure, administration, and the physical and institutional conditions of the territory.
For the purposes of this report, the election period is therefore examined through three interconnected dimensions of entrenchment:
- Expanding territorial control changes to land, settlements, outposts, roads, infrastructure, and access that alter the physical geography of the West Bank;
- Extending Israeli sovereignty & Institutional entrenchment over the occupied West Bank: the transfer or expansion of planning, land, administrative, and civilian powers and their incorporation into Israeli institutional structures;
- Direct consequences over Palestinians’ fundamental rights: the effects of these developments on Palestinian self-determination, territorial integrity, access to land and resources, and fundamental rights including freedom of movement, property, and the ability of communities to remain in their areas of residence.
The electoral context is therefore relevant not because elections themselves determine the legal status of the West Bank, but because political competition is taking place alongside and at the expense of introducing changes that may further entrench existing structures of unlawful control of occupied territory. The central issue is consequently the relationship between changes in government policy and changes in the underlying territorial and institutional reality: a future government may modify individual policies, but it may inherit material and administrative arrangements that have already altered the conditions under which Palestinian rights are exercised.
Accordingly, the assessment of the 2026 elections should extend beyond electoral platforms to the policies and realities established before the vote, and to whether these developments maintain, modify, or further institutionalize the unlawful existing structure of control and oppression.