Palestinian citizens of Israel fear they’re next target if far-right wins

Settlers from the occupied West Bank began building an outpost on al-Rus, a pine-covered hill above Majd al-Krum. They said they had a Jewish National Fund permit to graze livestock, but villagers found no livestock. The camp quickly gained tents, a kitchen, toilet, water line and electricity. Its location made the event especially alarming: this was one of the first such attempts inside Israel, beyond the Green Line.

Majd al-Krum residents responded with daily, peaceful demonstrations. Hundreds climbed the hill by foot, horse and off-road vehicle, despite police road closures. The Popular Committee and local council combined public protest with legal action. The Jewish National Fund then ordered the tents removed, and the site was cleared by September 16.

Villagers believed the outpost tested how they would react. Their fears grew because Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich promised to “Judaise” the Galilee and repeat policies used in the occupied West Bank. The removal brought a temporary victory, but residents fear further provocations after the election.

The Green Line is the name used for the boundary between Israel and the occupied West Bank. In the article, it marks an important political and geographic distinction. Majd al-Krum is inside Israel, while the settlers came from the occupied West Bank, where settlement outposts are already familiar.

Land on either side is governed within different political settings. Palestinian citizens of Israel live inside the Israeli state and participate in its political system. The West Bank, by contrast, is described in the article as occupied territory, where Israeli settlers have established outposts. The al-Rus camp was unusual because it attempted to reproduce that pattern inside Israel.

That difference explains the villagers’ alarm. They believed the camp could set a precedent for taking or controlling Palestinian-owned land in the Galilee. Smotrich’s pledge to repeat in the Galilee “the revolution” carried out in the occupied West Bank made the boundary seem especially important. The issue was not only one hill, but whether settlement methods would cross the Green Line.

Bezalel Smotrich’s plan proposes adding one million more Jews and creating 40 new Jewish communities in the Galilee and the Naqab. The article presents this as a major demographic and territorial programme, not a small local housing project.

The plan matters because both regions include large Palestinian populations. Smotrich says he wants to “Judaise” the Galilee and promises to repeat there “the revolution we carried out in [the occupied West Bank].” His language differs from older claims about simply developing the Galilee. Villagers interpret the new wording as an explicit effort to strengthen Jewish settlement.

The al-Rus incident made the proposal feel immediate to residents. Settlers established a camp on village land, and Smotrich later campaigned in Majd al-Krum with police and a water cannon. Peaceful protests removed the tents, but the broader plan remains a source of fear. Villagers worry that further settlement initiatives could pressure Palestinian communities and intensify disputes over land.

Palestinian villagers from Majd al-Krum and nearby communities were the main protesters. They climbed to al-Rus, held daily demonstrations and defended what they described as village land. Young organisers helped mobilise residents, while the Popular Committee and local council coordinated the response. Some left-leaning Jewish residents also joined the protests.

The settlers came from the occupied West Bank and claimed a Jewish National Fund permit to graze livestock. The Jewish National Fund later ordered the tents removed. Israeli police closed the road to the hill, arrested a Majd al-Krum resident over alleged contact with a Lebanese agent, and accompanied Smotrich when he visited the village. Police presence also included a water cannon during his campaign visit.

Smotrich represents the government’s far-right settlement agenda. He campaigned on Judaizing the Galilee and expanding Jewish communities. The local committees tried to prevent direct confrontation while pursuing public and legal pressure. Together, these actors created a contest over land, authority and the future of Palestinian communities inside Israel.

The protests worked because they combined large-scale public presence with formal legal pressure. After hearing about the outpost, Majd al-Krum’s Popular Committee met and, with the local council, called daily demonstrations. Residents did not rely only on confrontation. They maintained a peaceful presence while challenging the camp through legal channels.

Police closed the road, but villagers found other routes. Hundreds climbed the steep hill by foot, horse and off-road vehicle. Young people encouraged others to bring coffee and join them. People came from Majd al-Krum, nearby towns and the Naqab. An elderly couple in their 80s also made the difficult climb, showing the depth of local support.

After almost a week of demonstrations, the Jewish National Fund ordered the settlers’ tents removed. By September 16, the camp had disappeared. Hussein Mannaa said the popular struggle alongside the legal track produced the result. The villagers won this confrontation, although they still fear future settlement attempts and provocations.

The article does not describe the Nakba in detail. Established historical knowledge holds that the 1948 war displaced and expelled many Palestinians from their homes, creating a lasting memory of lost villages, property and territorial control. That history makes new land seizures or settlement projects feel connected to an older danger rather than isolated local disputes.

In Majd al-Krum, villagers saw settlers building on village land and quickly expanding the camp. They also heard Smotrich promise one million more Jews and 40 new Jewish communities in areas where Palestinians form a large part of the population. These developments can revive fears that Palestinians will lose control over land through gradual settlement and restricted access.

The al-Rus response reflected that anxiety. Residents from several communities united, climbed the hill and used peaceful protest plus legal action to remove the tents. Their victory was temporary. Because the article describes the outpost as a possible “pilot” experiment, villagers fear similar attempts could return after the election.

A state can grant citizenship rights while distributing land, housing opportunities and public protection unequally. Formal rights may include citizenship, voting or access to courts. But everyday control also depends on who receives building permits, whose communities expand, how police respond, and which settlement projects receive official support.

The article illustrates this tension through al-Rus. Palestinian citizens of Majd al-Krum organised against settlers who built on village land. Police closed the road to the hill, while the settlers cited a Jewish National Fund permit. Smotrich campaigned on Judaizing the Galilee and proposed new Jewish communities in regions with large Palestinian populations. These facts show how institutions and planning can shape territorial power beyond formal legal status.

The villagers’ response also shows that rights are contested in practice. They used demonstrations, local committees and legal action, and the tents were removed. Yet residents still feared future provocations. The article therefore presents citizenship as formal equality that can coexist with unequal influence over land, settlement and policing.