In 1961, the Israeli navy, seeking a way to overcome its small size and small budget, began research into an unprecedented idea: arming small craft—too small to be equipped with heavy cannon—with missiles. These ships could blow much larger ships out of the water, and sophisticated radar would give them a high likelihood of hitting their targets. After a decade of intensive research and development, Jerusalem contracted with a French shipyard to build the vessels, which the IDF would later arm and equip. But, after seven of twelve were delivered, Charles de Gaulle got cold feet.

To its opponents, the change in the legal status of certain areas of Judea and Samaria is “annexation;” to its proponents, it is the “extension of sovereignty” or the “application of Israeli law.” Naomi Khan argues that the last term best captures the practical implications of the measures in question. Since the Six-Day War, the Jewish state has continued to uphold the Ottoman legal system in areas of the West Bank under its jurisdiction—despite the fact that the Ottoman empire ceased to exist in 1922; “annexation” would end this situation. Setting aside the usual questions of foreign policy, security, and the possibility of Palestinian statehood, Khan argues that this change would be the one most felt by those who live there: