Israel’s Security Cabinet approved a plan on July 2 to convert 13 existing outposts into independent settlements in the central occupied West Bank, a move settler leaders describe as a security necessity and Palestinian officials call a deliberate step toward permanent annexation.
The approval, reported by Israel’s Channel 7 and carried by Al Jazeera, covers the Binyamin regional area, one of the largest settlement blocs in the central West Bank, along Route 60, the main road linking Nablus, Ramallah, and Bethlehem. The Times of Israel reported that the decision reclassifies 13 informal outposts, previously unrecognized offshoots of established settlements, into independent settlements with their own local councils, a status that unlocks direct access to state infrastructure funding that informal outposts don’t receive.
Israel Ganz, head of the Binyamin Regional Council and chairman of the Yesha Council, the main settler umbrella organization, framed the decision as a response to Palestinian Authority activity in the same territory. “From the western seam line to the eastern spaces overlooking the Jordan Valley, we are building communities and bringing life to the heart of the land,” Ganz said, adding that the new communities would create “a strong human chain on the ground” that protects flight paths into Ben Gurion Airport. The council said roughly half the planned communities would be in western Binyamin, connecting the Jerusalem area to central Israel, with the remainder in eastern Binyamin near the Jordan Valley.
The first phase, expected to begin within months, will formalize four to six of the 13 sites. Reported funding figures vary: Al Jazeera cited “investments worth millions of shekels,” while one estimate put the total closer to 1 billion shekels (roughly $270 million); the discrepancy likely reflects different outlets describing different phases or components of the plan.
The Palestinian Authority’s Jerusalem Governorate called the move a “dangerous escalation,” saying it would “create new geographical realities on the ground” and “undermine the prospects of establishing a geographically contiguous Palestinian state,” according to Common Dreams. The London-based International Center of Justice for Palestinians went further, stating that the expansion “is a deliberate strategy to reshape the geography and demographics of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, entrenching annexation and deepening Israel’s unlawful occupation, in clear violation of international law.” Under international law, including a 2024 International Court of Justice advisory opinion, Israeli settlements in the West Bank are widely regarded as illegal; Israel disputes that characterization.
Al Jazeera also reported that the Binyamin approval follows separate reports that settlement movements are preparing to push into Area A, territory under full Palestinian administrative control, which would mark a break from the Oslo Accords’ territorial divisions if pursued. More than 700,000 Israeli settlers currently live across the West Bank and East Jerusalem, land Israel captured in the 1967 war.
The approval came two days before Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich wrote on social media that the government had begun a “settlement revolution” that would eventually extend into Israel’s own Negev and Galilee regions, according to Arab News. Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, both leaders of settler-aligned factions in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition, have repeatedly called for formal annexation of parts of the West Bank. Palestinian researchers cited by several outlets say settlement outpost approvals have risen sharply under the current government, from an annual average of roughly eight between 2012 and 2022 to about 86 in 2025.
The decision landed in the same week as Hamas’s announcement that it is dissolving its Gaza governing body under the terms of the US-brokered ceasefire, and a fresh round of Israeli strikes in Gaza that killed at least four people on July 6. Some Palestinian officials have pointed to the coincidence of timing as evidence that unilateral action is continuing on multiple fronts; that remains their interpretation rather than an established link between the two decisions.
