•  In the absence of a unified national project and an agreed-upon Palestinian vision, Palestinians will not be able to confront the occupier's policy, backed by the global hegemon, at this historical juncture for the Palestinian people

- Mutaz M. Qafisheh is a professor of international law and diplomacy at Hebron University, Palestine, and Mazen Zaro is an independent international law researcher.

ISTANBUL

Recent Israeli decisions concerning land governance in the West Bank mark a qualitative shift in the structural institutionalization of the occupation. These measures form part of a broader systematic transformation from military occupation towards permanent control of the Palestinian Territory. The move reinforces seizure, dispossession, and manipulation, while simultaneously shrinking the space for Palestinians to assert their rights. By opening land ownership registries and dismantling regulatory safeguards over real estate transactions, Israel is reshaping the legal infrastructure governing land, sovereignty, and identity. The danger extends beyond territorial annexation; historically, annexation is often followed by demographic engineering. Land seizure becomes the prelude to the forcible displacement of the population. This intention is not speculative; it is openly articulated by senior Israeli officials in formal and public discourse.

Publishing land ownership records in the occupied territory, particularly within an annexation paradigm, facilitates the dispossession of native people. Palestinian landowners, especially those residing abroad, living near Israeli settlements, or in Area "C", which constitutes 60% of the West Bank, become identifiable and coercible. The exposure of ownership data enables intimidation, fraudulent transfers, and coercion. It paves the way for the systematic capture of "absentee property" and public land, particularly in a context where Israel denies the legal standing of the Palestinian Authority. Beyond property risks, such exposure constitutes a profound violation of Palestinians’ right to private ownership, transforming personal legal data into an instrument of domination. Under international humanitarian law, legal measures imposed by an occupying power that undermine protected property lack legal validity and are deemed null and void.

Legal normalization and Geneva Convention

On another level, transaction oversight, even if imperfect, previously functioned as a procedural friction mechanism capable of delaying or inspecting suspicious transfers. Its removal accelerates land appropriation and legalizes dispossession through civilian instruments rather than military orders -- an evolution toward de facto annexation achieved through the legal normalization of land confiscation. This approach stands in direct contradiction to the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits the use of occupied territory for the occupying power’s civilian population (Israeli settlers), notwithstanding Israel’s status as a High Contracting Party to the Convention.

The persistent silence of the international community is neither incidental nor unprecedented. It reflects a historical pattern whereby Israeli faits accomplis gradually acquire international tolerance. From the separation of Gaza to the annexation of Jerusalem and the consolidation of control over the Jordan Valley, incrementalism has consistently been met with muted reactions, despite the rulings of the International Court of Justice affirming the illegality of the Israeli occupation and the Palestinian people’s permanent sovereignty over land and resources. Legal clarity without political will enables normalization and perpetuates impunity. This position exposes a troubling case of double standards. In other conflicts, states have acted swiftly through sanctions, prosecutions, and material interventions. When it comes to Palestine, however, responses have largely been confined to declaratory diplomacy and ritual condemnation, lacking meaningful action.

The Israeli measures not only entrench annexationist realities on the ground but also effectively foreclose the viability of the two-state solution. By dismantling the territorial and legal foundations of Palestinian statehood, these measures transform what was once framed as a political impasse into a structural impossibility. The move erodes the legal architecture of the Oslo Accords, replacing their foundational premise of negotiated transition with unilateral engineering.

Accountability and need for a unified vision

The greater danger lies not only in the loss of land but in what typically follows: attacks on the native owners of the land. Territorial appropriation has historically served as a precursor to displacement, transforming legal control over land into demographic transfer. This reality demands a response that moves beyond polite and careful diplomacy. The appropriation of land in an occupied territory constitutes a core war crime under international law and an act of aggression, and it must be treated as such. Coordinated diplomatic and legal measures should therefore be directed to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to address land policies as grave breaches.

Meanwhile, third states must uphold their legal responsibilities. Situations arising from serious breaches of peremptory norms (jus cogens) of international law, which are considered an attack on humanity as a whole, cannot be recognized as lawful, nor can they be sustained through passivity. Meaningful accountability -- legal, economic, and political -- must replace empty condemnations. Yet external action alone is insufficient. The seriousness of these transformations underscores an urgent Palestinian imperative: the articulation of a unified national vision capable of translating legal clarity into political strategy. In the absence of a unified national project and an agreed-upon Palestinian vision, Palestinians will not be able to confront the occupier’s policy, backed by the global hegemon, at this historical juncture for the Palestinian people. Given the fact that the Oslo framework emerged under explicit international sponsorship, its systematic erosion imposes heightened responsibility on all states. Those who underwrote the accord bear a legal and political duty to prevent its unilateral dismantling and to uphold the principles they once crafted.

*Opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Anadolu.