Netanyahu and The Settlers: Cart and Horse in Action
CrossFireArabia- August 30, 2026
Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the latest events in the West Bank was not what the settlers did — that is hardly new or unexpected — but what Benjamin Netanyahu himself said. The Israeli prime minister denounced the “criminal acts of violence” committed by settlers in the villages of Qusra and Jalud, describing those responsible as a “handful of rioters” whose actions harm law-abiding settlers, interfere with the army’s work, and damage Israel’s standing in the world. This is precisely where the paradox lies: What exactly is Netanyahu condemning? Do the settlers’ actions really contradict his government’s policies, or do they ultimately serve the same project, albeit through different means and methods?
What is happening in the West Bank did not begin over the past few days, nor with the latest attacks. It has been developing for years along a clear trajectory, one that has accelerated dramatically under the current government and since the Gaza war. The United Nations has documented unprecedented levels of settler violence, with more than 1,430 attacks this year affecting some 260 Palestinian communities. Nearly 3,800 Palestinians have been displaced in 2026 as a result of settler violence, demolitions and evictions. These figures cannot simply be viewed as a collection of isolated security incidents; they point to a much deeper transformation taking place on the ground.
Settler violence, in fact, is only one part of a much larger picture. Nearly a thousand checkpoints, barriers, gates, and roadblocks now fragment the West Bank, turning everyday Palestinian life into a continuous struggle with geography, time, permits, and restrictions. In the northern West Bank, the situation has become even more severe, with tens of thousands displaced from the Jenin, Tulkarm and Nur Shams refugee camps, alongside extensive demolitions, bulldozing, and the physical reshaping of these areas.
The E1 settlement project takes the issue to another, more strategic level. Moving forward with E1 would effectively sever geographical continuity between the northern and southern West Bank and further isolate East Jerusalem, making the prospect of a contiguous and viable Palestinian state increasingly detached from realities on the ground. Add to this the transfer of significant powers within the Civil Administration to the authority of Bezalel Smotrich, who has made no secret of his objective of preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state; the empowerment of Itamar Ben-Gvir; repeated incursions into Al Aqsa Mosque and attempts to alter the long-standing status quo; settlement expansion; and a broader set of legislative and administrative measures moving in the same direction. What emerges is not a series of disconnected policies, but an integrated effort to determine the future of the West Bank on the ground before any political settlement can take place.
Against this backdrop, Netanyahu’s reference to a “handful of rioters” becomes difficult to take seriously. It suggests that the settlers operate in a political vacuum or somehow act against the direction set by the government and the state. Yet, however chaotic and violent their actions may appear, the outcome converges with a clearly defined political project: Pushing Palestinians away from their land, expanding settler control, fragmenting Palestinian geography and effectively closing the door on the possibility of a Palestinian state.
The real explanation for Netanyahu’s condemnation may therefore lie in his own words: these attacks, he said, “damage Israel’s standing in the world”. That sentence reveals the essence of the problem from his perspective. The concern appears to be less about the direction of these actions than about their method and image; less about their political consequences than about their transformation into openly violent scenes captured by international media — as happened when an NBC News crew itself came under attack by settlers — at a moment when Israel’s international image has become increasingly associated with the Gaza war, settlement expansion, and settler violence.
Netanyahu’s condemnation can therefore be understood as carrying a dual message. To the outside world, it says that the Israeli government neither endorses nor approves of such violence, even as its policies on the ground move in broadly the same direction. To the domestic audience, the message may be that what is required is not necessarily a change of course, but a more disciplined and calculated management of that course — one that does not further inflame the mounting crisis surrounding Israel’s international image and standing.
This is why Netanyahu’s condemnation is itself worthy of condemnation. The problem in the West Bank has long ceased to be simply a group of extremist settlers acting beyond the state’s control. It is part of a political project in which government policy, settlement expansion, security measures, legislation, and the Civil Administration increasingly converge to reshape the territory and demography of the West Bank and create realities that will be exceedingly difficult to reverse.
When Netanyahu finds himself condemning the natural consequences of a project that his own government has done so much to accelerate, the paradox becomes impossible to miss: He is not merely condemning the settlers. In effect, Netanyahu is condemning himself.
By Mohammad Abu Rumman is a columnist in The Jordan Times.
Heba
