Israel's fate will be decided in the West Bank, not just at the ballot box

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's warning that Israelis must prepare for an era of international banking sanctions, potentially forcing the country to develop financial workarounds used by isolated economies, including cryptocurrencies, has understandably sparked anxiety and heated debate ahead of the elections. Yet a far more fundamental question is receiving considerably less attention: Why might such sanctions be imposed in the first place, and how could Israel reach a point where even Washington turns its back on it? Israelis appear reluctant to confront the answer, or perhaps the endless exchange of political slogans is preventing them from doing so. The uncomfortable reality is that Israel's growing risk of international isolation stems largely from developments in the West Bank. These include creeping annexation, the pursuit of policies aimed at bringing down the Palestinian Authority, the rejection of any meaningful diplomatic settlement and unprecedented violence by Jewish extremists driven by radical nationalism and messianic beliefs. This reality exposes another uncomfortable truth. The so-called "settlement revolution," a central political project of Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, is fundamentally a sectoral undertaking, supported and promoted by a minority of Israelis for ideological and religious reasons, yet effectively imposed on the majority. Its supporters seek to present it as a national project enjoying broad public consensus. In reality, most Israelis rarely cross the Green Line separating Israel from the West Bank and have little understanding of what is happening in the territory. Advocates of the settlement project argue that it protects the entire country and represents a necessary lesson from the October 7 attacks. In their interpretation, Israel must seize territory from Arabs, and even conduct that contradicts Jewish moral values, including violence and dispossession, can sometimes be justified. The ideological vision behind the settlement revolution What the broader Israeli public is not being told, and is largely failing to question, is that this is not a coherent strategic plan. It is an ideological vision whose objective extends far beyond expanding Israel's borders. Its proponents envision a country that is not only larger but also more religious, with greater influence granted to rabbinical authorities over questions of national security and foreign policy, a tendency increasingly visible within parts of the religious Zionist movement in recent weeks. The vision also involves bringing biblical terminology and values into modern governance, establishing a system of institutionalized inequality that Smotrich insists does not constitute apartheid, and normalizing practices that I regard as war crimes, foremost among them the idea of "voluntary transfer" of Palestinians. The likely consequence is Israel's gradual descent into sweeping international isolation. In the background, senior figures in the settlement movement voice what appears to be anguish over violence perpetrated by extremist hilltop youth. They complain that such attacks damage the reputation of the settlement enterprise and undermine efforts to advance Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank, a goal they believe can eventually gain acceptance both domestically and internationally. But here, too, a fundamental truth is being concealed. There can be no continued expansion through settlement farms, no acquisition of additional territory and no prolonged direct rule over a population denied equal rights without violence becoming an inherent feature of the system. Anyone advocating a settlement revolution, particularly one that is not grounded in law, must acknowledge its associated costs. These include deep divisions within Israeli society over national values and identity, deterioration in Israel's diplomatic standing and economic prospects, and the near elimination of opportunities for normalization with additional countries in the region. There is also a substantial risk of damaging relations with countries that already have peace agreements with Israel. No public relations campaign, however sophisticated, can make creeping annexation acceptable to the international community, much less justify violence. The choice facing Israel On October 27, Israelis will be asked to decide what kind of country they want to live in. Yet a decision of enormous significance has already been advancing without their explicit consent. They are being told that anyone who supports a different political approach somehow represents "Palestine," while Israel moves toward applying sovereignty over the West Bank. Such a step would effectively mean dismantling the Palestinian Authority and bringing approximately three million Palestinians under Israeli rule. And that could be only the beginning of further ideological adventures, driven by religious convictions, expectations of divine intervention and the belief that international opinion is irrelevant. All this would unfold against a backdrop of prolonged wars across multiple fronts and the constant identification of new threats to sustain them, in the spirit of the vision of a "super-Sparta" increasingly invoked in Israeli political discourse. The resulting Israel could become an isolated, extreme and deeply suspicious country, resembling a combination of North Korea and Albania during its period of international isolation. A modern state cannot function in the 21st century with a settlement revolution, aspirations for religious redemption, the rebuilding of the Temple and biblical law at the center of its national project. Those who insist otherwise, or accept such ambitions without questioning them, are ignoring the realities of the wider world. But another Israel remains possible. It would be a powerful country that also understands the limits of military force and recognizes that strength must be employed precisely and selectively, rather than automatically in every confrontation. Such a country would be prepared to engage in serious discussions about long-term strategy and the diplomatic dimension of national security, an approach increasingly ridiculed in Israel since October 7. Instead, the principle of constantly taking the offensive has become almost sacred among those who regard themselves as having drawn the most realistic lessons from past failures. The very idea that military power must be accompanied by political strategy is too often dismissed. The danger of escalation before and after the election The current discourse surrounding the West Bank raises troubling questions about what could happen in the remaining days before the election or immediately afterward, particularly the possibility that political considerations could encourage the deliberate escalation of security crises. One example is the debate over whether Palestinian Authority security forces might turn their weapons against Israel. There have been suggestions that this scenario lacks supporting intelligence, raising concerns that a political or military target is being identified regardless of the facts. Another warning sign came in the statements issued after the deadly terrorist attack near Hebron that killed two IDF soldiers. Netanyahu declared that a broad military operation was needed in Hebron, including clearing areas of Palestinian residents as Israel had done in refugee camps in the northern West Bank, despite the significant differences between the circumstances. Smotrich, meanwhile, once again appeared eager to identify grounds for advancing his longstanding ambition of bringing down the Palestinian Authority. These developments should concern Israelis regardless of their political affiliation. Security threats demand serious responses, but they must not become instruments for advancing ideological agendas or fueling political tensions. Israelis rightly regard the coming elections as a historic turning point. The future of the West Bank is central to that decision, but the stakes extend well beyond the results at the ballot box. An equally important question is what will happen if a new government takes office and attempts to pursue policies fundamentally different from those of the current coalition. If the political atmosphere continues to be dominated by the delegitimization of opponents, claims of divine guidance and portrayals of alternative policies as obstacles to religious redemption, Israel risks descending into bitter internal conflicts. Jewish history offers painful warnings about the consequences of divisions driven by ideological absolutism and the refusal to recognize the legitimacy of opposing views. The danger, therefore, is not confined to international sanctions, damaged diplomatic relations or the future of the Palestinian Authority. It also concerns the ability of Israelis to preserve a shared national framework despite profound disagreements over identity, territory and the country's future. The fate of Israel may ultimately be decided not only by who wins the election, but by what happens in the West Bank and whether Israeli society can manage the conflicts that follow. Dr. Michael Milshtein is a senior researcher at the Moshe Dayan Center at Tel Aviv University