Middle East

US inaugurates consular services in West Bank Israeli settlements

Palestinians and Israelis, both left and right, say the move is a step towards legitimising Israeli settlements, which most of the international community considers illegal

26 February 2026

Aggiungi Il Sole 24 Ore
ai preferiti su Google

3' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

3' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

A new diplomatic taboo is set to fall in the West Bank. After making headlines in 2018 with the US ambassador's official visit to an Israeli settlement - a gesture that broke a long-established practice of caution - the US embassy in Jerusalem has announced that from Friday it will offer consular services directly to Efrat, a Jewish settlement south of Jerusalem. In the coming months, a similar initiative is planned in Beitar Illit, a fast-growing ultra-Orthodox settlement.

The embassy pointed out that these are temporary passport assistance desks, which have already been trialled in Palestinian cities in the West Bank such as Ramallah and Taybeh, as well as in Israeli cities such as Haifa, Beit Shemesh and Netanya. However, this will be the first time that such services will be provided within an Israeli settlement.

A spokesman insisted that the decision does not represent a change in US policy. Yet, in an unusual convergence of views, the Israeli right and left and the Palestinian leadership agree that the symbolic significance of the initiative is significant.

Israeli reactions: between legitimacy and sovereignty

On the right-wing front, Foreign Minister Gideon Saar called the choice 'an important decision'. Yuli Edelstein, MP and former Speaker of the Knesset, himself a resident of a settlement, hailed it as "a blessed step of enormous importance", arguing that it contributes to the "international legitimacy of our right to our homeland regions in Judea and Samaria", according to the biblical designation of the West Bank. Edelstein added that Israel should take "the next step" by applying its sovereignty over those territories.

Israeli settlements arise on land conquered by Israel in the 1967 war, considered by most of the international community to be an integral part of a future Palestinian state. The majority of countries consider them illegal under international law, which prohibits an occupying power from moving its population into occupied territories and from appropriating land other than for security purposes or for the benefit of the occupied population.

Cisgiordania, una delegazione Ue visita villaggio dopo un attacco

Palestinian and Israeli left-wing criticism

The Islamist movement Hamas spoke of a "dangerous precedent" and "de facto recognition of the legitimacy of the settlements and the occupation's control over the West Bank". In Ramallah, the Palestinian Commission for Resistance to Settlement and the Wall denounced a violation of the principle of "non-recognition of illegality", accusing Washington of consolidating the reality of the settlements and providing them with "additional political cover", contrary to its declared commitment to the two-state solution.

Even on the left in Israel, the move is read as an unequivocal political signal. Human rights lawyer Michael Sfard notes that Efrat - some 13,000 inhabitants, less than 13 kilometres from the US embassy in Jerusalem - is already dependent on the city for most services. "It cannot be interpreted in any other way than as a political statement legitimising the settlements," he argues.

The Shadow of Annexation

Liberal critics also point out the apparent contradiction with President Donald Trump's repeated statements against the formal annexation of the West Bank. The current US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, has long been considered close to pro-annexation positions.

According to Nadav Tamir, executive director in Israel of the liberal lobby J Street, the consular counters in the settlements represent a "creeping recognition of sovereignty", analogous to what many call "creeping annexation" on the Israeli side. "Since Trump said no to annexation, small steps are being sought under the radar," he says.

A reading shared by Daniel C. Kurtzer, former US ambassador to Israel under Republican and Democratic presidents, according to whom such initiatives reflect continuity with the approach of the first Trump administration, when in 2019 Washington declared that settlements were not "per se incompatible with international law" and closed the US consulate in Jerusalem historically dedicated to Palestinians.

Beyond the practical dimension - facilitating the renewal of passports for US citizens residing in the settlements - the choice seems destined to produce much broader political effects. In a context marked by the escalation in Gaza and the escalation of tensions in the West Bank, every symbolic act takes on a specific weight.

For supporters, it is a pragmatic adjustment to the reality on the ground. For critics, it is a further step towards the international normalisation of settlements.