Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked has been pushing for the application of Israeli law in the West Bank settlements. It’s an initiative that has been tried before.  The argument against doing this is that it is a form of annexation. By this measure, the Golan Heights – which was also occupied during the 1967 conflict – was annexed in 1981, when Israeli law was applied throughout that area.

Two things strike me through this comparison that may have implications for any peace deals with Syrians and the Palestinians respectively. The first is the status of indigenous peoples, and their current satisfaction with the legal framework in which they live. The second is the issue of law enforcement.

On the first point: there is recent evidence that the Druze population in the Golan Heights is keen to maintain their status quo with respect to the rule of law. No doubt fueled by the chaos across the border. I include here last year’s mob attacks on Israeli ambulances carrying Syrians wounded from nearby fighting; and the reported increase in the numbers of Druze seeking Israeli citizenship. Unlike the Palestinians, citizenship is open for Golan Druze, and while taking it up may be considered crossing the identity Rubicon, it is still an option.

In terms of policy impact, the probability of Israel considering handing back the strategic Golan to Syria under any circumstances is currently vanishingly small. Yet the issue will not simply disappear. In the future however, the more Druze that have naturalised as Israelis, the less likely they would (or even could?) vote in a referendum to return to Syrian rule – even under an enduring peace.

On the second point of law enforceability: the settlements in the West Bank are already operating outside international law. Thus the law applied by the state of Israel to Jewish settlers in the West Bank is, today, almost a moot point. Nevertheless, who decides on the law and most importantly, who can enforce the law in any area of the West Bank, is the kernel of the of the sovereignty debate – Israeli or Palestinian.

Under a two state solution for example, the endurance of Israeli law in any remaining settlements would demand that the institutions of the judiciary and the security apparatus remain in place – such as the police, and the intelligence services. Israeli law within the settlements would thus help to preserve a de facto state within a state..

The introduction of Israeli law into the West Bank geographic area may seem a technical issue or even redundant, but it has highly political, non-trivial implications.