Recently, the Palestinian Center for Israeli Studies Madar published an Israeli paper entitled “The Settlement–Biblical Discourse toward the West Bank: A Reading in the Discourse of the Israeli Army and the Settlers”, authored by Madar researcher Walid Habbas. The paper, comprising 100 pages, presents translations of four selected Israeli texts that shed light on the settlement–biblical discourse concerning the West Bank—its land and population—rooted in two interlinked components as manifested in the texts: the settler–colonial component, which is based on the superiority of the settler and his inherent right to the land in contrast to the inferiority of the indigenous population and the necessity of excluding them from the space; and the biblical component, which rests on a “sacred” religious narrative that humans are not to dispute, and which accompanies the settler–colonial component in order to grant it an “ethical” and “lofty

mission.”

The Israeli paper opens with a preface written by Antoine Shalhat, Director of the Israeli Scene Unit at the Palestinian Center for Israeli Studies (Madar), situating the translated texts within a historical context that underscores their contemporary relevance—particularly in the wake of the formation of the current right-wing settlement government, which is actively working toward the annexation of the West Bank, guided by the “Decisive Plan” formulated by Smotrich in 2017. The paper then offers a critical review of the concept of discourse in the context of settler colonialism, with a focus on the factors contributing to the formation of the settlement–biblical discourse. The bulk of the paper is devoted to the translated texts.

The first text, entitled “The West Bank or Judea and Samaria – Changing the Official Name in July 1968”, is a document from the Israel State Archives recounting part of a debate within the Israeli government over replacing the term “West Bank” with “Judea and Samaria.” This renaming sought to reconstitute the place and its geography according to a biblical narrative. The significance of the change lies not only in the creation of a new discourse, but also in the way the concept of “Judea and Samaria” inherently legitimizes the expropriation of land from its indigenous owners.

The second text, entitled “Alternative Policy in Judea and Samaria”, was authored by a prominent figure in the hardline nationalist settlement movement who has held numerous sensitive advisory positions concerning the fate of the West Bank. It presents the perspective of biblical settlers, who view the West Bank as an inseparable part of their ancestral homeland and regard their settlement/return there as divinely mandated and as a sign of the onset of redemption. Inextricably tied to the biblical narrative of the so-called Jewish right to the land, this discourse incorporates a settler–colonial element that ranges—from, at best, calls for greater control over Palestinians and the erasure of their political rights, to, at worst, advocating their displacement or eradication from the area.

The third text, “Why is the Israeli Presence in the [Occupied] Territories Still Called an ‘Occupation’?” by Sharon Avinoam, argues that Israel’s presence in the West Bank does not meet the criteria set by international law for defining “military occupation” and thus should not be labeled as such. This position is supported through selective legal arguments and interpretations.

The fourth and final text, “Fifty Years of Military Rule in the Occupied Territories”, authored by Shlomo Gazit—a central figure in the colonial administration and one of the first coordinators of the ministerial committee for the occupied territory (later known as the “Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories” unit)—describes the Israeli system of control and repression. It traces the evolution of the occupation since 1967, including efforts to “normalize” the lives of the Palestinian population, the application of punitive measures when deemed necessary, and “prudent” management aimed at balancing the “right” to settlement (with the army portraying itself as having a non-political stance toward settlement) against Palestinian political aspirations, which could be either suppressed or managed depending on circumstances.