An Israeli cabinet minister whose responsibilities include supervising Israeli-controlled parts of Judea-Samaria has instituted a minor administrative change in those areas, a change that is permitted by the Oslo Accords.
So what’s the problem?
In a faux expose last week, the New York Times claimed to have uncovered a “stealthy” Israeli conspiracy to annex “the West Bank.”
The problem is it’s not stealthy, it’s not a conspiracy, and it only impacts the portions of Judea-Samaria that the Palestinian Authority (PA) agreed, at Oslo, can be run by Israel in any way it sees fit.
That’s the crucial part that the Times never got around to mentioning—that little thing called the Oslo agreement.
There’s a reason that the Times and other critics of Israel never mention Oslo: doing so would interfere with their crusade to create a Palestinian state in all of Judea-Samaria.
Here are some of the inconvenient clauses to be found in those 1993 Israel-PA accords:
— There’s not one word in Oslo prohibiting Israel from building new Jewish communities in the Israeli portion of Judea-Samaria, or expanding existing communities.
— Oslo requires the PA to extradite terror suspects to Israel, to arrest and imprison terrorists, to disarm and outlaw terrorist groups, and to halt all pro-terror incitement.
— And nothing in Oslo prohibits Israel from transferring military control in its part of Judea-Samaria to civilian control, as cabinet minister Bezalel Smotrich has openly done.
Critics of Israel don’t want to admit that the Palestinian Authority signed on to all of those clauses. They don’t want the international community to be reminded that the PA has refused to extradite terrorists to Israel, or capture and jail them, or expel terror groups from the PA and the PLO, or halt the incitement.
So instead, they pretend as if the Oslo Accords do not exist. They scream about “settlements” even though Oslo allows them. They claim Smotrich is involved in some kind of secret conspiracy, even though what he has done is open and permitted by Oslo.
There you see the dilemma the Times faces. If it admits that Oslo doesn’t prohibit what Smotrich is doing—there is no story.
If it admits that Smotrich is doing it publicly, not as part of any secret Jewish plot—there is no story.
And if it admits that Israel controls only the part of Judea-Samaria that Oslo allotted, that would totally take the wind out of their campaign. After all, who really cares about Israeli administrative procedures in a region where only 2% of the Palestinian Arabs reside? (The other 98% live in the areas the PA controls, or in Gaza.) Hence the headlines about how Israel is trying to “control the West Bank”—to make it sound as if Israel is trying to seize land when that’s just not the case.
An earlier Times article on this subject very gingerly admitted, deep in the article, that Smotrich’s administrative changes “have limited effect in the 40 percent of the West Bank that is administered by the Palestinian Authority.”
That word “limited” is amusing. Nowhere in the article did the Times explain just what that “limited effect” consists of—because, in reality, it has zero effect. But admitting that would ruin the narrative.
When the Israeli left and the State Department sold the Oslo Agreement to the Jewish public in 1993, their argument was that it would serve as a test of the Palestinian Arab leadership’s intentions, and if the test failed, Oslo could be reversed.
That was their argument; but that didn’t reflect their true intention. Their real intention was for Oslo to pave the way to create a Palestinian state. How do we know? Because as soon as Oslo proved to be inconvenient, they tossed it aside. They never cared about the PA’s constant violations of Oslo. They don’t care what Oslo says about settlements or administrative changes. They only care about one thing—forcing Israel to accept a Palestinian state in the old nine-miles-wide borders before 1967.
This week’s non-story about Israeli administrative changes proves once again that Israel’s critics will say anything—even create nonexistent controversies and conspiracies—in order to advance their pro-Palestinian agenda.
Moshe Phillips is a past board member of the American Zionist Movement and served as a delegate to the 38th World Zionist Congress.
N.Y. Times Finds a Jewish Conspiracy Where None Exists
Moshe Phillips
An Israeli cabinet minister whose responsibilities include supervising Israeli-controlled parts of Judea-Samaria has instituted a minor administrative change in those areas, a change that is permitted by the Oslo Accords.
So what’s the problem?
In a faux expose last week, the New York Times claimed to have uncovered a “stealthy” Israeli conspiracy to annex “the West Bank.”
The problem is it’s not stealthy, it’s not a conspiracy, and it only impacts the portions of Judea-Samaria that the Palestinian Authority (PA) agreed, at Oslo, can be run by Israel in any way it sees fit.
That’s the crucial part that the Times never got around to mentioning—that little thing called the Oslo agreement.
There’s a reason that the Times and other critics of Israel never mention Oslo: doing so would interfere with their crusade to create a Palestinian state in all of Judea-Samaria.
Here are some of the inconvenient clauses to be found in those 1993 Israel-PA accords:
— There’s not one word in Oslo prohibiting Israel from building new Jewish communities in the Israeli portion of Judea-Samaria, or expanding existing communities.
— Oslo requires the PA to extradite terror suspects to Israel, to arrest and imprison terrorists, to disarm and outlaw terrorist groups, and to halt all pro-terror incitement.
— And nothing in Oslo prohibits Israel from transferring military control in its part of Judea-Samaria to civilian control, as cabinet minister Bezalel Smotrich has openly done.
Critics of Israel don’t want to admit that the Palestinian Authority signed on to all of those clauses. They don’t want the international community to be reminded that the PA has refused to extradite terrorists to Israel, or capture and jail them, or expel terror groups from the PA and the PLO, or halt the incitement.
So instead, they pretend as if the Oslo Accords do not exist. They scream about “settlements” even though Oslo allows them. They claim Smotrich is involved in some kind of secret conspiracy, even though what he has done is open and permitted by Oslo.
There you see the dilemma the Times faces. If it admits that Oslo doesn’t prohibit what Smotrich is doing—there is no story.
If it admits that Smotrich is doing it publicly, not as part of any secret Jewish plot—there is no story.
And if it admits that Israel controls only the part of Judea-Samaria that Oslo allotted, that would totally take the wind out of their campaign. After all, who really cares about Israeli administrative procedures in a region where only 2% of the Palestinian Arabs reside? (The other 98% live in the areas the PA controls, or in Gaza.) Hence the headlines about how Israel is trying to “control the West Bank”—to make it sound as if Israel is trying to seize land when that’s just not the case.
An earlier Times article on this subject very gingerly admitted, deep in the article, that Smotrich’s administrative changes “have limited effect in the 40 percent of the West Bank that is administered by the Palestinian Authority.”
That word “limited” is amusing. Nowhere in the article did the Times explain just what that “limited effect” consists of—because, in reality, it has zero effect. But admitting that would ruin the narrative.
When the Israeli left and the State Department sold the Oslo Agreement to the Jewish public in 1993, their argument was that it would serve as a test of the Palestinian Arab leadership’s intentions, and if the test failed, Oslo could be reversed.
That was their argument; but that didn’t reflect their true intention. Their real intention was for Oslo to pave the way to create a Palestinian state. How do we know? Because as soon as Oslo proved to be inconvenient, they tossed it aside. They never cared about the PA’s constant violations of Oslo. They don’t care what Oslo says about settlements or administrative changes. They only care about one thing—forcing Israel to accept a Palestinian state in the old nine-miles-wide borders before 1967.
This week’s non-story about Israeli administrative changes proves once again that Israel’s critics will say anything—even create nonexistent controversies and conspiracies—in order to advance their pro-Palestinian agenda.
Moshe Phillips is a past board member of the American Zionist Movement and served as a delegate to the 38th World Zionist Congress.
Did you enjoy this article?
You'll love our roundtable.
Editor's Picks
Israel and the Internet Wars – A Professional Social Media Review
The Invisible Student: A Tale of Homelessness at UCLA and USC
What Ever Happened to the LA Times?
Who Are the Jews On Joe Biden’s Cabinet?
You’re Not a Bad Jewish Mom If Your Kid Wants Santa Claus to Come to Your House
No Labels: The Group Fighting for the Political Center
Latest Articles
Suspect dead after car crash, shooting at Detroit-area Reform temple, largest in North America
Print Issue: The Year Everything Changed | March 13, 2026
Rabbi Jerry Cutler, 91
Racing Back to War: Israelis Stranded Abroad Desperate to Return Home
Healing Through Play: Mobile STEAM Unit Delivers Trauma Relief to War-Affected Communities
Friday Night Star – Spicy, Saucy Salmon
Pies for Pi Day
March 14, or 3/14 is Pi Day in celebration of the mathematical constant, 3.14159 etc. Any excuse to enjoy a classic or creative pie.
Table for Five: Vayakhel
Funding The Mishkan
The Light of Wonderment: A Letter to My Sons
Crazy as it might sound, it all started with the Dodgers, and how they won back-to-back World Series in 2024 and 2025.
Rosner’s Domain | Why Israelis See the War Differently
American malaise involves gloomy thoughts about spiking gas prices, or depressing flashbacks to previous wars where days stretched into decades. Israeli malaise is accompanied by gloomy thoughts about the Americans.
God: An Invitation
No single philosophical system can contain God.
For the Dogs? The Delightful Surprises of Jewish Medieval Art
Canines’ renowned loyalty was a natural representation of the “loyal transmission of the divine mandate from generation to generation.”
Honoring Palestinian Women Terrorists on International Women’s Day
Even those self-described human rights groups that are strongly biased in favor of the Palestinian Arab cause acknowledge the PA’s systemic mistreatment of women.
It Didn’t Start with Auschwitz
Jews today do have a voice. For the moment. But we have not used it where it counts – in the mainstream media, the halls of power, on campuses, on school boards, in the public square.
Regime Humiliation: No, You Won’t Destroy Israel
After years of terrorizing Israelis with existential threats, the Islamic regime is now worried about its own existence. In a region where the projection of power is everything, that is humiliation.
Congress Must End Institutional Immunity That Allows Officials to Act With Impunity
Congress has already established this principle for corporate America; it must apply the same standard to education, where vulnerability and the risk of exploitation are high.
After Barrack and Perelman Jewish Day Schools, a Hard Question for American Jewish Life
The generation that built these schools believed Jewish life in America had a future worth institutionalizing. Are we willing to invest, sacrifice and build accordingly?
The War in Iran and the Long-Term Relationship with America
There is a golden opportunity to expose the intellectual bankruptcy of antisemitism based on current identity politics discourse, and to credibly argue that the current struggle is a global confrontation between the forces of terror and oppression and the Free World.
Ladino Shabbat at Sinai
On a recent Shabbat, Sinai celebrated the Ladino tradition and invited me to tell my story.
An Open Letter to First Lady of New York City
Public gestures matter. When someone in a position of influence treats atrocity as liberation, the signal travels far beyond a social media post.
A Short Fuse
At 73, I know I am on a slippery slope that’s getting slipperier.
Newsom’s Machinations
Newsom’s machinations are a warning that the current difficulties for American politicians facing rising voter unhappiness with Israel will only become harder.
The Satan Series: The Supreme Leader Finally Arrives
Oh, how I have waited for this day.
Two Israelis Attacked Outside San Jose Restaurant
According to the two men, three individuals who were standing behind them suddenly began punching them without saying a word.
YidLife Crisis Brings ‘Swedishkayt’ — and Jewish Joy — to the Museum of Tolerance
The event — which combines a film screening with live comedy, music and nosh— offers audiences a chance to experience the pair’s distinctive blend of storytelling, cultural exploration and Jewish humor.
How Antisemites Can Save the Jews
American Jews have always understood a key lesson of life: even if your victimhood is justified, if you wear it it will kill you.
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.