Introduction
This document was written in November 2024 in light of our assessment at the time that unique circumstances might significantly increase the likelihood of annexing parts of Judea and Samaria. Annexation is not merely a technical process but rather a fundamental and drastic change in the geo-strategic reality, carrying political, legal, and security implications. The ambiguity surrounding the legal status of Judea and Samaria has also had advantages for Israel, whereas clarifying this status could create new diplomatic and political challenges. Therefore, a thorough interdepartmental effort is required to fully understand the implications of annexation for the State of Israel. This document is intended only to highlight the issue but does not serve as a substitute for such work.
Last week, President Trump was asked about the matter and responded that "Israel is a very small country," hinting that the administration's stance on the issue would take shape in the coming weeks. In light of this, we are reissuing the document to a broader audience, though without the classified and sensitive section containing recommendations for policymakers.
This document argues that annexation is not a binary alternative, and the manner in which Israel carries it out will impact various aspects of national security just as much as the act itself. The document was written before Trump's statement regarding the possibility of evacuating Gaza, which may affect several fundamental assumptions that served as the basis for the analysis presented herein.
The Heart of the Matter
Trump’s election is perceived by many in Israel as a major political and security opportunity. While Trump is expected to be an unpredictable president, most of the relevant appointments he has announced so far— including Ambassador to Tel Aviv Mike Huckabee, UN Ambassador Elise Stefanik, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio - suggest strong support for Israel and an exemption of Israel from the isolationist foreign policy Trump is expected to pursue.
Our analysis identifies several key working assumptions regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
Trump’s “Deal of the Century” is back on the table. As is well known, the plan included a vague future commitment from Israel to establish a Palestinian state on approximately 70% of the West Bank, alongside the Gaza Strip, with territorial compensation in the Negev. Israel’s avoidance of annexing the areas that were supposed to be part of Israel under Trump’s plan enabled the Abraham Accords and was expected to serve as the basis for normalization with Saudi Arabia. While the two-state vision was the foundation of Trump’s plan, it was widely understood that efforts to establish a Palestinian state were effectively shelved for the time being.
A high probability that the Israeli government will move towards annexation. No political party in Israel’s current government is likely to challenge this initiative, and Trump’s appointees suggest that such a move may gain support from senior U.S. administration officials. The main tension between the American and Israeli governments will revolve around the extent of the annexation—whether Israel aims to annex more than the 30% allocated to it under Trump’s “Deal of the Century.” Under pressure from right-wing ministers, renewed Israeli settlement in Gaza may also be added to Israel’s list of demands.
Will normalization with Saudi Arabia prevent annexation? It appears that only a firm Saudi demand to block annexation in exchange for normalization could halt the move. However, we believe that the Saudis will not "fall on their sword" for the two-state solution and may settle for a symbolic reaffirmation of Trump’s plan in exchange for normalization. Given that Israel was previously very close to normalization with Saudi Arabia without special guarantees for the two-state solution, it is possible that the recent addition of a Saudi demand for a formal Israeli commitment to Palestinian statehood was actually initiated by the Biden administration (we’ll wait patiently for the archives to open in fifty years).
Implications
The responsibility is now on Israel. Until now, Israel could comfortably present maximalist demands to the U.S., knowing that the administration would block some of them. In a reality where Israel has a green light, it must better understand the consequences of its actions.
Annexation is not just a technical move; it represents a fundamental and dramatic shift in the geopolitical reality with significant diplomatic, legal, and security consequences. The ambiguity surrounding the legal status of the West Bank has served Israel’s interests in certain ways, while clarifying this status could create new diplomatic and political challenges. Most importantly, annexation could impact Israel’s identity as a liberal democracy, strain relations with Jordan, erode bipartisan U.S. support, and weaken ties between mainstream American Jewry and Israel. The move is also expected to bolster the global campaign to label Israel as an apartheid state, with potentially severe consequences after Trump leaves office.
Gaza: Annexing parts of the West Bank does not solve the challenge of Hamas rule in Gaza or the humanitarian crisis in the Strip. Israel will still have to decide between reinstating military governance or cooperating with a Palestinian authority.
Annexation is not a binary option, and the manner in which Israel executes it will impact multiple dimensions of national security.
Key dilemmas include:
What percentage of the territory will be annexed?
Will annexation follow Trump’s plan or be a unilateral move?
What is Israel’s long-term vision for the millions of Palestinians in the region?
How does Israel’s unclear stance on "the day after" in Gaza align with annexation?
Can annexation be executed without undermining the regional alliance against Iran?
What is the right balance between deepening annexation in the West Bank and the desired level of international involvement in Gaza?
How is Israel preparing for likely severe scenarios post-annexation, such as the dissolution of the Palestinian Authority or damage to the peace treaty with Jordan?
What are the long-term legal implications, particularly regarding Israel’s standing in international courts?
Conclusions
Annexation carries significant risks. At a time when Israel is militarily fighting for its survival and facing rising social polarization, embarking on a political adventure with potentially severe consequences for the country’s existence and character is questionable. However, given the unique political circumstances, we believe that annexation is highly likely to materialize. Therefore, this document focuses on how it should be done, rather than on whether it should be done. A thorough strategic assessment is required to fully understand the implications of annexation and formulate an appropriate strategy. This document aims to highlight the issue but does not replace such an assessment.
Unilateral annexation outside a recognized political and legal framework could significantly complicate Israel and increase its international isolation. Our core assumption is that the international community’s stance on annexation (which is expected to be mostly negative in any case) will be influenced by the realities in the non-annexed areas of the West Bank and Gaza and will depend on how the annexation is managed.
The combination of annexation in the West Bank and the potential need to reestablish Israeli civil administration in Gaza could trigger a dangerous chain reaction. This scenario might ultimately reinforce the international perception that Israel is responsible for the entire area. As a result, calls for a one-state solution based on “one person, one vote” could gain momentum. Such a development would pose a fundamental challenge to Israel’s identity and future.
Comments