After the Knesset approved in preliminary reading the law to annex the occupied West Bank, official American statements were issued confirming the rejection of this, with the implication that the United States would not allow it. However, a closer reading indicates that this may not necessarily be accurate.
American refusal
Since its occupation in 1967, the occupation has sought to impose its effective control over the occupied West Bank and increase settlement there in what was known as “silent annexation.” Since 2017, Finance Minister and army settlement official Bezalel Smotrich has inherited this legacy, calling for its transformation into complete political and legal annexation, within what he called the “moment of decision.”
In the coalition agreement between Netanyahu and Smotrich in 2022, the latter spoke of an agreement to “pave the way for imposing sovereignty on the West Bank,” leaving that to “the appropriate time.” He also boasted in July 2023 that the government was “changing the infrastructure, ownership and legality, and changing the DNA of the occupation regime, slowly but professionally.” Last September, he called for Israel to announce an official annexation of 82% From the area of the occupied West Bank.
In response to the recognition by an increasing number of countries of the Palestinian state, and in a clear effort to prevent this from being achieved, and with the impetus of extremist parties and ministers in the occupation government, the Knesset approved, on the 22nd of this month, in preliminary discussion, the law “imposing sovereignty” on the occupied West Bank, with the support of 25 representatives and the opposition of 24.
In an immediate comment on the vote, the Minister of National Security – in the occupying state and one of the biggest supporters of the resolution – Itamar Ben Gvir said, “The time to impose sovereignty over the West Bank has now come.”
Official American statements rejecting the Knesset vote continued. Trump himself asserted that “Israel will not do anything in the West Bank,” stressing that “it will not happen,” and repeating that three times.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio also warned that “this proposal jeopardizes President Trump’s peace plan.” While the sharpest statement came from Vice President J.D. Vance, whose visit to Israel coincided with the Knesset debate, where he described the vote as a “stupid political maneuver,” stressing that it “disturbed him personally,” and that his country’s government was not satisfied with it.
The coincidence of these statements with extensive visits by a number of American officials, starting with Trump himself, passing through his Secretary of State Rubio, and his deputy Vance, and not ending with his envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, suggested that the American administration is imposing great pressure on the Netanyahu government regarding the field situation in Gaza, and the issue of annexing the West Bank, and does not want to leave it to decide on them.
Rather, this prompted some opposition leaders to say that Trump is the one managing matters in “Israel”, which in their opinion has become “incomplete with sovereignty,” especially since Netanyahu was quick to reassure the American side that the draft law came from the opposition side, and that its goal is “to sabotage relations with the United States,” stressing that the resolution “will not be approved in the end.”
All of this suggested that the US administration has a decisive and final position to reject Israel’s annexation of the occupied West Bank, which constitutes a guarantee that this will not happen, at least under President Trump’s administration. Is this true and accurate?
Timing and context
Trump’s personality, his previous positions, his current statements, and the context of recent developments lead to great caution in approaching his refusal to annex the West Bank, and refer more to a circumstantial and contextual position that may be temporary and change later.
The man has become known for his contradictory statements and the fluctuation of positions that have become an integral part of his personality, which makes relying on his current statements a kind of adventure.
Trump, who provided the occupying state with unprecedented support in its war on Gaza, which he boasted of before the Knesset, had recognized Jerusalem as its capital and moved his country’s embassy there in 2018, in addition to his recognition of its annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights in 2018. In his recent election campaign, Trump promised that his country would recognize the annexation of the West Bank, noting that “Israel’s area is small” and needs to expand.
In his current statements rejecting annexation, the US President does not provide decisive formulations preventing the matter, but rather warns of losing American support “if annexation occurs.”
Some of his statements even directly referred to the timing, as he said about the annexation, “It will not happen, it cannot be done now.” Other official statements also included a call on “Israel” to be patient to reap the fruits and achieve the goals it wants, similar to Vance’s request to Netanyahu, “Give the deal a chance, and allow it time to make things happen.”
The American administration deals with Netanyahu’s government with the logic of the “mother of the child” who knows better than his interests, and which tries to protect him even from himself (and his haste and recklessness) at times. Therefore, it sees preponderant interests in not annexing the West Bank now for several reasons.
In the first place, the US administration wants to stabilize the ceasefire in Gaza and move to the second phase, which Trump has repeatedly repeated his need for Arab countries to implement, especially its support for the idea of multinational forces in Gaza.
Because he is aware of the Arab (and Islamic) position that strongly rejects the annexation of the West Bank, the American President fears the impact of this on the Arab countries’ support for his plan. Therefore, he affirmed in his last aforementioned statement that the annexation of the West Bank “will not happen, because I promised the Arab countries,” which is confirmed by Rubio’s warning about the impact of this on Trump’s plan as previously mentioned.
Something similar could be mentioned in the context of the US administration’s efforts to make the current agreement a starting point for additional normalization agreements with some Arab and Islamic countries, which could face real difficulties if “Israel” annexes the West Bank.
The explosion of the situation in the West Bank is also a possibility in light of the occupation’s practices there during the war of extermination, the transfer of momentum from Gaza to it after the ceasefire, and the continued “Israeli” intransigence regarding the future of Gaza, and the refusal to hand it over even to the Palestinian Authority, which constitutes an additional political blockage, which makes an official path towards annexation a lightning bolt that could explode the current relative calm.
The possibility of escalation in the region against Iran and/or Lebanon and perhaps Yemen still exists, which the American administration does not oppose, but rather uses as a pressure tool on the aforementioned parties, in addition to the continued flow of its weapons to “Israel” recently, and thus the annexation decision will be a disturbing and confusing factor on the path and the positions of the Arab countries towards it.
Finally, the American position rejecting the Knesset vote did not address the ongoing settlement process that has encroached on the West Bank and undermined any possibility of the supposed Palestinian state in the future. This is a path likely to accelerate further in light of the expected electoral bidding ahead of the Knesset elections expected next year.
Accordingly, the failure to announce the annexation officially and “legally” does not negate or cancel the practical process that is steadily continuing and accelerating in changing the facts and imposing a new fait accompli. This was indicated by the Likud Party, which criticized what it considered “a show law aimed at harming our relationship with Washington,” stressing that we must “promote settlements daily with actions, not words.”
The head of the government coalition in the Knesset, Ofir Katz, referred to the same content, who said, “True sovereignty will not be achieved by a review law of the Protocol, but rather by working on the ground and creating the appropriate political conditions to recognize our sovereignty, as happened in the Golan Heights and Jerusalem.”
In conclusion, the American administration’s refusal to annex the West Bank is not a principled position based on the political and legal status of the West Bank, the future of the Palestinian issue, and the chances of establishing a state, but rather to achieve circumstantial goals that are mainly related to ensuring the support of the Arab countries in implementing the second phase in Gaza, as well as the paths of normalization with each other, as the Trump administration hopes, as it was he who promised his country’s recognition of the annexation of the West Bank in his last election campaign.
The opinions expressed in the article do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera Network.