In the past year, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) carried out around 80 counterterrorism operations at the brigade level in the West Bank, which Israelis refer to as Judea and Samaria. These efforts reportedly neutralized hundreds of terrorists and resulted in the seizure of over 1,300 weapons.
The IDF has indicated a significant decrease in Palestinian terrorist activity, noting a 78% drop in incidents compared to the previous year. Firearm-related assaults, in particular, plummeted by 86%.
Security remains a critical issue in this historically rich area, home to more than 500,000 Jews and about 3 million Palestinians. Officials in Israel argue there’s a need for Jerusalem to assert sovereignty over the territory.
Recently, President Trump initiated the second phase of a peace plan for Gaza, yet the challenge of disarming Hamas continues to loom large.
According to past agreements, specifically the 1993 Oslo Accords, the West Bank was segmented into three areas: Area A, fully under Palestinian control; Area B, shared ownership between the Palestinian Authority and Israel; and Area C, entirely under Israeli governance.
Trump’s 2020 proposal, dubbed “From Peace to Prosperity,” included provisions for Israel to annex portions of Judea and Samaria but was set aside in favor of the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations with several Arab nations. In July 2024, the Israeli parliament, or Knesset, dismissed the idea of establishing a Palestinian state and later, in July 2025, encouraged the government to extend its sovereignty over areas including Judea and Samaria. Yet, Vice President J.D. Vance criticized this legislative action as a “very stupid political stunt.” He clarified that the Trump administration’s stance is that annexation of the West Bank by Israel won’t occur, which he believes should persist.
There were significant discussions about Israel’s control over Judea and Samaria. Lt. Col. Jonathan Conricus, a retired IDF spokesperson, emphasized the region’s national security relevance. He argued that controlling the high ground is essential for Israel’s defense, pointing out the risks of allowing hostile factions access to strategic territories that overlook much of modern Israel.
Moreover, Conricus stressed that no Israeli government could safely withdraw military oversight without jeopardizing state security. While there is a fragile peace with Jordan, he noted the kingdom’s instability, suggesting that Israel needs defined borders to enhance its defense.
Dan Diker, from the Jerusalem Center for Security and Diplomacy, highlighted the evolution of defensible borders since the 1967 Six-Day War, marking their importance in current security contexts. He noted that while Israel exercises control over 60% to 75% of the region, threats remain, particularly from the flow of arms and incitement from groups like Hamas.
Historical and National Context
Yishai Fleischer, an international spokesperson from Hebron, pointed out that Judea and Samaria play a foundational role in Jewish history as many biblical events took place there. He highlighted locations of significant biblical references and mentioned efforts to retitle Route 60 as the “Biblical Highway,” underscoring the historical link to the land.
Legal and Political Dynamics
Recent incidents have raised alarm, with reports of vandalism and violence in the region. Gantz, the governor of Binyamin, indicated a rise in anti-Palestinian acts since the conflict escalated on October 7. He referred to an uptick in attempted attacks against Israelis.
Former Israeli ambassador Michael Oren discussed the two-state solution, suggesting it’s largely seen as a reflex rather than a viable resolution, with historical examples of Palestinian rejections of such proposals spanning decades. Oren argued that current Palestinian sentiments largely oppose the two-state framework, which some see as an intermediate step towards a more troubling single-state outcome.
Dan Shapiro, an ex-U.S. ambassador to Israel, suggested that while renewed efforts for Palestinian statehood face numerous hurdles, the notion remains relevant, particularly in the context of addressing both peoples’ claims to the land. Despite changes in leadership and societal dynamics, he posited that a framework for a peaceful two-state solution might still emerge, although it would require significant adjustments and time.
