The demand for Israel to be democratic characterizes the majority of the public in the country. However, the disagreements revolve around the definition of “democracy” and its essential components. For example, it is clear that the term loses its meaning without holding legal elections. Another component likely included in this crucial definition is the people’s decision-making power on important issues concerning the country and the nation’s future.
However, in practice, critical strategic decisions are being made de facto outside the framework of the Knesset or even the government—without any commitment to a democratic process and perhaps even contrary.
This is the case with Israel’s policy in Judea and Samaria as it has been carried out in recent decades. It appears that the judicial system and the military are enforcing policies that seemingly contradict the Oslo Accords—or, at the very least, policies that have never been politically or democratically decided upon.
Research we conducted indicates that Civil Administration officials are allegedly operating according to their political worldview regarding Israel’s policy in the West Bank rather than following a policy officially defined by the Israeli state. Moreover, it turns out that in practice, the entire West Bank—including “Area C,” which was agreed upon in the Oslo Accords to remain under complete Israeli control—is being exploited for illegal construction by the Palestinian Authority. This is happening with the backing of the Supreme Court’s rulings in favor of these actions, without calling on the Knesset to make a sovereign and democratic decision.
No professional can entirely separate their professional opinion from their political worldview. As we know from all aspects of life, professional opinions are influenced by political perspectives rather than the other way around. However, the majority of Civil Administration officials believe that the West Bank is destined to become a Palestinian state. Consequently, every legal question that arises is examined and addressed based on this assumption.
At best, this approach assumes that the area will inevitably become a Palestinian state. At worst, it seeks to ensure this actively. The elected government’s directive explicitly rejects this approach. However, in practice, the legal decision on every case is ultimately made by the official in the field.
Officially, all experts and legal professionals agree that the professional echelon is supposed to operate by the directives of the elected political leadership. However, in reality, each official acts as they see fit, and the responsible minister cannot ensure that the policies they dictate are implemented.
The Arab Plan for the Takeover of Area C
The Oslo Accord between Israel and the Palestinian Authority was signed in August 1993. Alongside the agreement, a secret document was signed between then-Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and Mahmoud Abbas, a senior PLO official at the time and now the Palestinian Authority’s chairman. Later, this document evolved into a series of agreements known as the “Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements.” These agreements established a framework for mutual recognition between Israel and the PLO. They outlined a series of understandings to be implemented until a permanent-status agreement was reached, based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.
On September 13, 1993, the Declaration of Principles was signed in a formal ceremony at the White House. Ten days later, the Knesset approved the agreement, later known as “Oslo I.” As part of this agreement, IDF forces withdrew from Palestinian urban centers in Gaza and Jericho. About two years later, in September 1995, a follow-up agreement, “Oslo II,” was signed. This agreement granted the Palestinians self-rule in significant cities and about 450 villages in the West Bank. It transferred civilian control over approximately 90% of the Palestinian population in the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority.
Under this agreement, which the Knesset approved on October 5, 1995, the area was divided into three zones:
- Area A (~17% of the West Bank) – under complete security and municipal control of the Palestinian Authority. This includes major Palestinian cities and parts of the surrounding rural areas.
- Area B (~21% of the West Bank) – under Palestinian municipal and civil administration, but with Israeli security control.
- Area C (~60% of the West Bank) – including the Jordan Valley, security zones, and all Israeli settlements. Israel retained complete security and civil control over this area. As a result, planning, construction, and civil enforcement powers in Area C were given exclusively to Israel, which exercises these powers through the Civil Administration.
Due to Palestinian terrorism and the Second Intifada, negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority were halted, and the interim agreement’s status quo remained in place. However, while Israel saw this as maintaining a status quo, the Palestinian Authority began systematically taking control of land across the West Bank—particularly in the past decade—through illegal construction, road paving, and agricultural development in areas that, according to the agreements, are under complete Israeli control.
Fayyad Plan
The illegal Arab construction in Area C is neither incidental nor spontaneous. It is deliberately promoted by the Palestinian Authority (PA) with the silent approval—and even enthusiastic encouragement—of the Israeli Civil Administration. The objective is to establish facts on the ground in favor of the Palestinian side, in line with the “two-state solution” concept.
This Arab construction has been carried out according to the “Creeping Annexation” plan, conceived in 2009 by Salam Fayyad, who was then the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority. The goal of the plan is to unilaterally advance the establishment of a Palestinian state “from the ground up”, bypassing the need for negotiations with Israel. The plan, published in 2009, is based on the aspiration to create an “independent Arab state with full sovereignty over all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip within the 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital.” The strategy focuses on building infrastructure specifically in Area C, which is under complete Israeli control, to create Palestinian corridors and territorial continuity while disrupting any Jewish settlement continuity.
Since 2015, the plan has been implemented even more vigorously as part of the Palestinian Authority’s central initiative, known as “The Battle for Area C.” Within this initiative, the Palestinian takeover of Area C is organized, planned, and funded by the Palestinian Authority, to bring as much of the West Bank as possible under Palestinian sovereignty. This effort is carried out according to detailed master plans synchronized and coordinated between all Palestinian governing bodies, including government ministries, local authorities, dedicated operational agencies, security organizations, and civilian entities such as NGOs and foundations. A centralized coordination and supervision mechanism, led by the Palestinian Prime Minister’s Office, oversees the entire operation.
The plan benefits from foreign support, which was formalized in a 2012 European Union decision, stating that the EU would operate in Area C not only for humanitarian or economic purposes, as it had in the past, but also to shape policies in anticipation of a political settlement and as a countermeasure to Israeli settlement expansion.
The European Union actively supports the Arab “Creeping Annexation” plan, which is funded by hundreds of millions of euros. Foreign assistance efforts in the “Battle for Area C” include political support, media and public relations efforts, legal campaigns, preparation and promotion of zoning plans, development initiatives (such as public construction, infrastructure, employment, education, and agriculture), land registration and organization under Palestinian Authority control, and direct support for communities, including Bedouin populations.
According to the Research Division of the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office, foreign funding for these various programs amounts to approximately half a billion euros annually—roughly two billion shekels annually. The research division estimates this is a well-organized and extensive effort involving the governments of the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, France, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, Turkey, Qatar, and Jordan. Numerous international aid agencies, economic organizations such as the World Bank, UN bodies, the EU, and various Arab and Islamic organizations are involved. The Palestinian Authority itself acts as a liaison between local Palestinian authorities and foreign entities to advance projects that are given priority.
The Palestinian strategy focuses on settling the nomadic Bedouin population by constructing permanent structures in a network of illegal outposts and establishing water and solar-powered electricity infrastructure. This Bedouin settlement network in Area C extends across the entire West Bank, from the Judean and Samarian mountain ridge eastward toward the Jordan Valley and from the Judean Hills eastward toward the Judean Desert and the Dead Sea.
The Palestinian plan enjoys support from the Israeli Civil Administration, backed by full judicial endorsement from the Supreme Court, which has issued multiple rulings aligning with this political objective. For instance, in 2017, the court ruled that an illegally constructed mosque in southern Hebron should not be demolished—even though it was built in Area C, which is officially under Israeli control. The illegal mosque was constructed at the Zif Junction, a known hotspot for security incidents, stone-throwing, and civil unrest, and it is located just meters away from the main road leading to Jewish communities in the Hebron region.
Enforcement proceedings against the mosque began as early as 1994. Still, Supreme Court records indicate that in 2009, the Israeli Civil Administration decided to erase the proceedings altogether and even initiated efforts to legalize the illegal construction—without the mosque’s builders ever requesting or applying for a construction permit.
