The international community loves a simple villain. It’s a comfort food for diplomats. Right now, the menu features a singular, spicy narrative: the Israeli government is the sole architect of West Bank instability, and a stern letter from the UN or a few sanctions from Washington will suddenly restore a pastoral peace. Guy Poran and his cohort of well-meaning activists are currently shouting into the megaphone of "international demand." They want the world to force the Israeli state to rein in settler violence.
They are fundamentally misreading the room.
Worse, they are misreading the mechanics of power. By demanding that the international community "intervene" to stop settler-state friction, they aren't solving the problem. They are providing the exact pressure necessary to solidify the most radical elements of the movement they claim to oppose.
If you want to understand why the West Bank remains a tinderbox, you have to stop looking at it through the lens of a simple law enforcement failure. This isn't a "glitch" in the system. It is the system. And international "demands" are the fuel, not the fire extinguisher.
The Sovereignty Paradox
The core argument usually goes like this: The Israeli government has a monopoly on force, it is failing to use that force against violent settlers, therefore the world must pressure the government to act.
This logic is built on a hollow foundation. It assumes the Israeli government is a monolithic entity with a clear, undisputed mandate over every square inch of Area C. It isn't. I have watched high-level security meetings where the "state" realizes it has lost the tactical initiative to local, decentralized actors.
When the international community "demands" action, the Israeli political structure reacts with a predictable, defensive reflex. In the Middle East, external pressure doesn't create compliance; it creates a siege mentality. For a settler movement that views itself as the authentic vanguard of Zionism, every condemnation from Brussels or D.C. is a badge of honor. It validates their narrative that the "official" state is a weak, puppet-like entity susceptible to foreign whims.
By making this an international issue, activists like Poran are inadvertently shifting the power balance. They are turning local skirmishes into a global existential struggle. This gives radical fringes a level of geopolitical importance they could never achieve on their own. You aren't "reining them in." You are making them the center of the universe.
The Myth of the "Controlled" State
We need to talk about the "Lazy Consensus" regarding state complicity. The assumption is that the IDF and the police are simply choosing to look the other way. While there are documented instances of standing by, the reality is far more terrifying for the "rule of law" crowd: the state's grip is slipping because the social contract is fraying.
The Israeli security establishment is currently fighting a three-front shadow war. One against external threats, one against organized Palestinian militancy, and a third—the most dangerous—against its own internal fragmentation. When an international body demands the Israeli government "end" violence, they are asking a fractured coalition to perform a surgical operation with a sledgehammer.
If the state moves with overwhelming force against its most ideologically committed citizens, it risks a domestic rupture that makes the 2023 judicial reform protests look like a garden party. The "nuance" the international community misses is that the Israeli government is often as afraid of these radical elements as the international community is.
Instead of admitting this weakness, the government performs a dance. They offer a few arrests, a few condemnations, and wait for the news cycle to move on. International pressure just makes the dance more frantic. It doesn't change the choreography.
Stop Asking the Wrong Questions
People also ask: "Why doesn't the US just cut off aid until the violence stops?"
This is the ultimate "wrong question." It assumes that the settler movement is funded by, or cares about, F-35 maintenance contracts. It doesn't. The most radical elements of the West Bank movement are increasingly self-sufficient, fueled by private donations and a deep-seated belief that they are more "Israeli" than the people living in Tel Aviv penthouses.
If the US cut aid tomorrow, the settlers wouldn't pack up and leave. They would double down. They would frame it as a "War of Independence" against the whole world. Is that the outcome the "international community" is looking for? A total breakdown of the state’s ability to moderate its own citizenry because it lost its primary diplomatic and military anchor?
The Counter-Intuitive Reality of Stability
If you actually want to reduce violence, you have to stop making the Israeli government the middleman of your outrage.
Stability in the West Bank historically hasn't come from "demands." It has come from local, de-escalated, and often quiet arrangements between those on the ground. When the international community gets involved, everyone has to take a public stand. Taking a public stand means nobody can compromise.
- Logic Check: Diplomacy usually requires "carrots." The current international approach is all "sticks."
- The Result: The sticks are being used to beat a government that is already losing control of its right wing, effectively pushing that wing further into a corner where violence is their only remaining currency.
Imagine a scenario where the international community focused entirely on strengthening the Palestinian economic infrastructure in Area C without making it a "zero-sum" political statement. By creating facts on the ground that are economically beneficial to all local parties, you create a disincentive for chaos. But that isn't "bold" enough for the activists. It doesn't feel like "justice." So instead, they demand "ends" and "actions" that they know—deep down—the current political structure cannot deliver.
The High Cost of Moral Grandstanding
There is a dark side to this contrarian view. If we stop demanding international intervention, do we just let the violence happen?
No. But we have to admit that the current "pressure" strategy is a failure that has only seen violence increase over the last decade. We are doing the same thing and expecting a different result. That is the definition of insanity in foreign policy.
The "insider" truth is that the West Bank is currently a laboratory for the post-state world. We see non-state actors (on both sides) asserting more influence than the official governments. Shouting at the "official" government to "do something" is like shouting at a weather vane to change the wind. It might make you feel morally superior, but it won't keep the rain off your head.
The international community needs to stop acting like a disappointed parent and start acting like a realistic broker. That means acknowledging that the Israeli state is not a unified actor and that "demands" often empower the very people they are meant to silence.
Stop asking the world to "demand" an end to the violence. Start asking why the world thinks its "demands" still have any value in a region that has learned to ignore them.
The era of the "international community" dictating terms in the Judean Hills is over. The sooner the Porans of the world realize that their letters and petitions are actually hardening the opposition, the sooner we can move toward a strategy that doesn't rely on the fantasy of a compliant, all-powerful Israeli central government.
The state isn't ignoring the problem. The state is losing the ability to solve it, and your "demands" are just making the collapse faster.
