The Long Brief: Annexation on the Table
The politics, pressure, and peril behind Israel’s sovereignty votes.
Welcome to The Long Brief, our new weekly feature for deeper context and conversation.
Each week, we’ll go beyond the day’s headlines — exploring the people, policies, and places shaping Israel’s story.
This first edition looks at the sovereignty debate that just rocked Jerusalem. As the Knesset advanced two bills to apply Israeli law in Judea and Samaria, Washington, Riyadh, and the Israeli right all drew their own red lines. What would annexation really mean — on the ground, in diplomacy, and for Israel’s identity?
Sovereignty and Strategy: Israel’s Annexation Dilemma
A two-minute press gaggle in Jerusalem told the story. With Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu beside him, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that the Knesset’s surprise move to apply Israeli law in Judea and Samaria “might be… threatening to the peace deal” emerging after the Gaza war, a point he repeated as he headed into meetings while in Israel.
Moments later, Vice President JD Vance called the maneuver a “very stupid” political stunt and said he took “some insult” at it, a line he delivered on the airport tarmac before wheels up. (Days before, in an interview with TIME, Donald Trump, usually cast as one of Israel’s most generous patrons, issued an ultimatum: if Israel annexes, it would “lose all support” from the United States.) Washington’s message came through loud and clear.
Hours earlier, Israeli lawmakers had defied their own premier and advanced two sovereignty bills on a preliminary reading.
One sweeping proposal to extend Israeli sovereignty to all Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria scraped after a Likud veteran broke ranks. A narrower bill to annex Ma’ale Adumim passed with broader margins the same day.
Likud boycotted the votes and dismissed them as a deliberate provocation aimed at blowing up ties with Washington, then moved to punish the rebel: MK Yuli Edelstein was removed from the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee for backing the broader bill.
Israel faces a hard choice that pits Zionist conviction against political reality. The domestic argument for annexing Judea and Samaria runs deep in history, security, and identity. The international veto is louder.
What Sovereignty Would Do on the Ground
Israeli annexation means swapping the current military patchwork in parts of Judea and Samaria for full civilian rule. For more than half a century the territory’s status has been suspended between two realities. Israel captured it from Jordan in 1967 and still governs it, but it never formally absorbed it into the state. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) administer most of it through a web of military orders that overlap with the mixed Israeli–Palestinian system created under the Oslo Accords.
Inside roughly 140 Jewish towns and villages, Israeli residents already live under Israeli law through enclave arrangements. Their Arab neighbors live under Palestinian Authority control and Israeli military jurisdiction. The result is legal chaos: military governors, an IDF Civil Administration, Ottoman land codes, British Mandate rules, Jordanian statutes, and imported Israeli regulations operating side by side.
When advocates of sovereignty speak about “applying Israeli law,” they mean clearing away this clutter and bringing normal governance—courts, ministries, taxation, and infrastructure—under one functional framework. The model they point to is eastern Jerusalem or the Golan Heights, where the Knesset in 1981 extended “the laws, jurisdiction and administration of the State” without ever using the word annexation.
In practice, sovereignty in Judea and Samaria would erase the IDF’s civil authority and transfer its duties to Israeli ministries, police, courts, and regulators. Civil institutions would fully handle zoning, taxation, and utilities. The separate systems that divide an Israeli and a Palestinian living within sight of each other would fall under a single system.
Supporters argue that this would end the legal gray zone that leaves Israelis subject to military decrees while their Arab neighbors remain under yet another legal framework. Critics say it would cement two classes of residents inside one expanded state.
Jerusalem offers the clearest precedent. After the Six-Day War, Israel extended its law to the eastern side of the city—Old City, Mount of Olives, and dozens of Arab neighborhoods—folding them into the capital. Arabs in those areas were not made citizens but “permanent residents,” a category that grants individual rights without national ones. They can live, work, and vote in municipal elections, but not in Knesset races. They must also prove that Jerusalem remains their “center of life,” or risk losing that residency.
Whether the same framework would apply to Arabs in annexed parts of Judea and Samaria is the explosive question. The majority of Israelis rejects granting full citizenship to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Area C, the region most likely to be annexed first—considering the Islamist push for expanding control via demographics, this does make sense. Some propose permanent residency, as in Jerusalem; others suggest autonomous Arab enclaves left under Palestinian Authority control.
Both ideas are riddled with practical and moral hazards. Israel’s own experience with eastern Jerusalem shows how unstable “resident, not citizen” status can become.
No Israeli official has produced a clear mechanism for absorbing a large Arab population while protecting both the state’s Jewish majority and its democratic order.
The current sovereignty push sidesteps the issue entirely. It refers applying Israeli law to Jewish communities and avoid any mention of neighboring Arab villages. The silence is deliberate. Applying sovereignty is far easier to proclaim than to administer.
The Oslo map remains central to this discussion. Under Oslo II in 1995, Judea and Samaria were divided into Areas A, B, and C as a temporary arrangement.
Area A, roughly 18 percent of the land, sits under full Palestinian Authority control and includes major Arab cities like Ramallah and Nablus.
Area B, about 22 percent, has shared Israeli security and Palestinian civil authority.
Area C—over 60 percent of the territory—holds almost every Jewish settlement and remains under full Israeli control.
The framework, meant to last five years, still governs decades later.
Area C has become the core of the sovereignty debate. About half a million Israeli Jews live there, along with some three hundred thousand Arabs spread among villages and encampments.
Any [currently] realistic annexation drive would target the areas with Jewish population density while excluding the Arab centers in Areas A and B. The legislation now before the Knesset refers specifically to “areas of settlement in Judea and Samaria,” a clear nod to Area C.
The objective is to bring the populated settlement blocs fully under Israeli law while absorbing as few Arabs as possible.
Even a step-by-step approach, such as starting with Ma’ale Adumim, would begin in Area C, which Israel already runs day-to-day.
None of this involves sending Israeli police into Arab cities like Jenin or Nablus tomorrow.
The mainstream Israeli plan envisions extending sovereignty to territory Israel already controls, not occupying new ground. Whether foreign governments—or the Palestinians themselves—accept that distinction is another question entirely.
Inside Israel: Who Wants Annexation, and Who Doesn’t
The loudest calls for annexing Judea and Samaria come from Israel’s right, though even there the choir sings out of tune. The current government leans farther right than any before it and is solidly pro-settlement, but Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has kept his distance from the recent sovereignty push.
The bills now roiling the Knesset were not his idea. They began with the opposition. Avi Maoz of Noam, a religious hardliner who once sat with the coalition, wrote the sweeping sovereignty bill. Avigdor Liberman of Yisrael Beytenu, a secular nationalist who loathes Maoz’s camp, drafted the narrower one to annex Ma’ale Adumim. Their alliance is less a meeting of minds than of convenience. Both saw a chance to force the government’s hand and score headlines.
They quickly found allies inside the cabinet. Itamar Ben Gvir of Otzma Yehudit and Bezalel Smotrich of Religious Zionism have preached annexation for years. Smotrich said in September that Israel should annex “82 percent of the West Bank,” meaning nearly all of Area C. When the vote came, Ben Gvir’s faction called it a “historic day” and told Likud colleagues that the world’s disapproval could wait; “what is right for Israel is sovereignty now.” For them, sovereignty would finish the Zionist project. It would declare that Jewish history and law belong in Judea and Samaria, provide security depth against future wars, and end what they call the hypocrisy of ruling land indefinitely without owning it. Maoz said as much on the Knesset floor: “The Holy One, blessed be He, gave the people of Israel the Land of Israel.” Settlement, he argued, was redemption after two millennia of exile. In his view, applying sovereignty corrects a historical wrong and does so late.
The unity ends there. Likud formally supports eventual sovereignty, but not these bills. Netanyahu’s faction walked out of the chamber rather than vote no and risk alienating their base. Likud leaders condemned the votes as “opposition trolling… aimed at damaging our relations with the United States.”
Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant have voiced sympathy for the idea but keep to the script.
On a tight rope, trying to balance two political realities: domestic and international, Netanyahu warns that annexation now, while Israel is still at war and barely maintaining a ceasefire in Gaza, would trigger a fight with Washington that Jerusalem cannot afford—which seems backed up by that statements from Washington officials.
Education Minister Yoav Kisch said as much before the vote: “I’m a great believer in applying sovereignty,” he told the plenum, “but the government will lead toward sovereignty together with our American partners.” Translation: don’t test the White House.
Even the ultra-Orthodox parties split. One United Torah Judaism faction voted yes, another abstained, saying the talk itself “puts us in conflict with the United States.”
Israel’s right loves the idea of annexation. Many of its leaders simply think now is the wrong time to cash that check.
The center and left have played their own games.
Yair Lapid and Benny Gantz both oppose unilateral annexation, calling it a diplomatic disaster that would bury the prospect of any future separation. Yet several of their lawmakers voted for Liberman’s Ma’ale Adumim bill anyway, not to advance it but to humiliate Netanyahu. They knew he opposed the timing. Their votes turned the floor into theater: the far-right celebrated, Likud fumed, and the prime minister was wedged between his ideological allies and his American patrons. Lapid’s camp then rushed to clarify that they had no intention of letting annexation become law. The purpose was mischief, not policy.
Still, the episode laid bare a larger truth. Israel is not united on annexation. Even many who believe Judea and Samaria are the Jewish people’s ancestral heartland question the wisdom of acting now.
The phrase that keeps surfacing—“what happens the morning after?”—isn’t rhetorical. Who pays for new civil services? Who patrols the roads shared by Israelis and Arabs? What happens to the thousands of Arabs living in Area C? Proponents say the costs are worth paying. Others doubts it.
For now, the country lives in the tension between faith in its historic claim and fear of the consequences of enforcing it tomorrow morning.
Washington’s Red Line: “Not Something We’d Support”
The sovereignty bills that divided Israel united almost everyone else—against them.
The reaction in Washington was quick, loud, and unmistakable. And it came from a government Israelis once assumed would never raise its voice. This is not an Obama or Biden White House wagging a finger. It is Trump’s. The same administration that moved the embassy to Jerusalem, recognized Israeli control of the Golan, and called the Jewish state an ally without conditions. Yet on annexation, the line could not be more clearly defined..
“It won’t happen,” President Trump recently told Time magazine. “I’m not allowing Israel to annex the West Bank. I gave my word to the Arab countries. Israel would lose all of its support from the United States if that happened.” Coming from the most pro-Israel American president in living memory, that threat landed like a thunderclap. It reflected less moral outrage than cold strategy. Trump has wagered his legacy on stabilizing Gaza and completing a sweeping normalization deal with Saudi Arabia. Talk of annexation risks both.
Washington is working to secure Israel’s battlefield gains and convert them into regional peace—and hoping to craft and cement a legacy for Trump as peacemaker. Jerusalem’s sudden flirtation with annexation looked like sabotage. American officials said as much.
Trump’s firmness on this issue has nothing to do with sympathy for Palestinians or devotion to international law. He couldn’t care less about UN resolutions. His concern is transactional.
After Hamas’s war on Israel and the ceasefire he brokered—what he calls the “Comprehensive Plan to End the Conflict in Gaza”—Trump sees himself as the man who imposed calm.
“It could have gone on for years,” he told Time. The president now expects Israel to stick to his script for phase two: diplomacy, reconstruction, and Arab partnership.
Unilateral annexation would be, in Trump’s mind, an act of betrayal. That’s why the rhetoric sounds personal. Washington’s aid, weapons deliveries, and diplomatic cover come with an unspoken clause: don’t wreck the deal. Vance drove it home. “The West Bank is not going to be annexed by Israel. That will continue to be our policy,” he said.
There is no ambiguity in that sentence.
If Netanyahu crosses the line, the price could be immediate—delayed arms transfers, trimmed aid packages, and a rare bipartisan rebuke in Congress.
Trump has already mused privately about freezing fighter jet sales if Jerusalem goes rogue. Israelis heard him—especially in the context of Trump’s allowing Qatar, a principal backer of Hamas, to build a facility on a US Air Force base in Idaho to train (and buy) jets.
For Israel to be threatened like this by Trump, of all people, feels surreal.
During his first term, the Israeli right treated him as a political miracle. He recognized Jerusalem as the capital, declared the Golan Israeli, slashed funding to the Palestinian Authority, and proposed a peace plan that openly allowed for Israeli sovereignty over 30 percent of Judea and Samaria.
In July 2020, Netanyahu even prepared to act on that promise, until the Abraham Accords offered a better prize. Annexation was shelved in exchange for peace with the UAE and Bahrain.
Five years later, the landscape has flipped. Trump’s second term is built on diplomacy, not cartography. He promised the Gulf states that Israel would hold its fire. Those promises now define American credibility in the Arab world.
The irony is hard to miss. The same Israeli right that once saw Trump as its enabler now finds itself leashed by him. The most pro-Israel president in history has become the one telling Jerusalem “no.”
He is not doing it out of hostility but because the map of his grand bargain leaves no room for new borders. The lesson for Israel’s hardliners is painful and simple. Friendship with Washington, even under Trump, has limits. Annexation, at least for now, is beyond them.
Arab States and the Specter of a Shattered Normalization
The Arab world, including the states that signed peace deals with Israel, is livid.
Annexation is a red line that touches deep pan-Arab and Islamic myths about Palestine.
The United Arab Emirates, once the engine of the Abraham Accords, has been the loudest voice. In 2020 the UAE made a bargain: it normalized relations only after Netanyahu froze annexation plans in Judea and Samaria. That pause was how Abu Dhabi sold normalization to its own public—it could claim to have stopped Israel from “stealing Palestinian land” in exchange for peace. Now, with sovereignty back in Israeli headlines, Emirati officials say their trust has been broken. One senior diplomat warned that applying Israeli law in the territories would be a “red line” that ends regional integration. The phrase was no metaphor.
Quiet talk inside Abu Dhabi hints that the UAE could freeze economic ventures or downgrade diplomatic ties if Jerusalem moves ahead. Emirati outlets that once printed glowing coverage of Israeli innovation are now republishing harsh editorials on settlements. The meaning is clear: normalization came with conditions, and annexation violates them.
Saudi Arabia has delivered its own warning. The kingdom’s Foreign Ministry condemned the Knesset’s sovereignty bills as an attempt to legalize “colonial settlement” and said any such step would destroy chances for peace. Riyadh reaffirmed its support for a Palestinian state on the 1967 lines with East Jerusalem as its capital—a formula irreconcilable with Israel applying sovereignty to large parts of those same territories. Saudi officials told Washington privately that if Netanyahu cannot restrain his right flank, normalization stops cold. For Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who has cautiously prepared his public for peace with Israel, annexation would brand him a traitor to the Arab cause. He won’t take that risk.
The same dynamic reaches beyond the Gulf. Egypt and Jordan have both lodged official protests. King Abdullah reportedly called Netanyahu to warn that Jordan’s internal stability—his country’s majority population is Palestinian—depends on restraint in Judea and Samaria.
Bahrain and Morocco, newer members of the Abraham Accords, are also watching nervously. Bahrain’s rulers weathered street protests in 2020 by pointing to Israel’s freeze on annexation as their moral cover. If that assurance evaporates, so might their political breathing room. Morocco, which restored relations with Israel after Washington recognized its sovereignty in Western Sahara, has kept quieter but still issued a statement affirming Palestinian rights.
Annexation would upend the very logic that made the Abraham Accords possible. The UAE–Israel deal proved that pragmatic Arab leaders could prioritize defense and economic progress if the Palestinian issue stayed dormant. Annexation would reignite it. It would hand victory to hardliners who say normalization was always surrender to Zionist expansion.
Emirati and Saudi diplomats have tried to cultivate an image of a modern Middle East that looks forward, not back to 1948. A unilateral Israeli move would drag them back into that swamp. The Emirati foreign minister even pleaded at the UN in September: “Do not return to the bleak days of conflict, do not ruin what we have built together.” It was both a warning and a lament.
If Israel ignores it, the consequences will reach far beyond the Palestinians. The Gaza truce, already wobbling, would evaporate, the Gulf’s economic partnership with Israel could stall, and Trump’s prized Saudi-Israeli deal—the one he sees as Nobel material—would collapse. Trump himself told reporters he doubts Riyadh would sign anything if Israel annexes. For a man who measures history in headlines, losing that photo-op is unthinkable. Hence the rare unity between Washington, Abu Dhabi, and Riyadh on this question.
Outside the region, the chorus grows louder. The European Union has already declared annexation “illegal under international law” and warned it “will not be recognized.” EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell condemned even the language of “applying sovereignty,” calling it a step toward “illegal annexation” that destroys any prospect of peace.
European diplomats are revisiting their contingency plans from 2020: economic penalties, recalled ambassadors, maybe UN sanctions. Even Israel’s friendly partners in Europe would struggle to block such moves. At the United Nations, denunciations would multiply. And this time, Washington might not veto them. If Israel defies an explicit American warning, its usual diplomatic shield could crack. The result would be a level of isolation Israel hasn’t faced in decades—though it has weathered such storms before.
The global legal establishment already treats annexation as heresy. Russia’s seizure of Ukrainian territory has hardened that consensus. In the current moral climate, any Israeli move seen as similar would torch the goodwill Israel earned in Europe, Asia, and Africa over the past decade.
Western diplomats now recite the language of decolonization; they would slot Israel into that script without hesitation. Jerusalem can dismiss the hypocrisy, but it cannot ignore the cost. Annexation would not only inflame the Arab street—it would risk dismantling the fragile architecture of peace that Israel itself helped build.
How We Got Here: From 1967 to 2025
The push to annex Judea and Samaria didn’t appear out of nowhere. It has simmered in Israeli politics since June 1967, when the Six-Day War changed the map and the Jewish people regained control of their heartland. In that short defensive war, Israel defeated Jordan, Egypt, and Syria and captured the territories they had held since 1948—Judea and Samaria from Jordan, Gaza from Egypt, and the Golan Heights from Syria.
Debate over what to do with these lands began almost immediately. The first move was Jerusalem. In late 1967 Israel extended its municipal borders eastward, applied Israeli law, and reunited the capital, including the Old City and the Western Wall.
The rest of Judea and Samaria remained under Israeli military administration. No one yet knew if it would be held, traded, or partitioned. The Arab League answered in Khartoum that September with its famous “three no’s”: no peace, no negotiations, no recognition. Israel took the hint and stayed put.
Through the 1970s a movement of Jewish resettlement took root. Dozens of communities sprang up across Judea and Samaria, built by Israelis who saw returning to those hills as a moral and historical obligation.
Formal annexation, though, stayed off the agenda. Even Prime Minister Menachem Begin, who led the Likud revolution in 1977, kept his focus elsewhere. He turned to the Golan Heights, the strategic plateau overlooking the Galilee. In 1981 the Knesset passed the Golan Heights Law, applying Israeli “law, jurisdiction and administration” there without using the word annexation. Washington bristled—President Reagan briefly froze a cooperation pact—and the UN called the law “null and void.” The law stood. Israel has governed the Golan ever since, and in 2019 the Trump administration recognized that reality.
Encouraged by that precedent, some of Begin’s ministers urged him to do the same in Judea and Samaria. A 1982 proposal to apply Israeli law there fizzled. The Golan had few Arabs; Judea and Samaria had hundreds of thousands. Begin, who had just signed peace with Egypt, wasn’t about to jeopardize it. The policy that followed was cautious: build and integrate, but don’t declare sovereignty.
The 1990s brought the Oslo Accords. In 1993 Israel and the PLO signed an agreement that created the Palestinian Authority and carved the territories into Areas A, B, and C. Area A fell under full Palestinian control, Area B under shared administration, and Area C—about 60 percent of the land—under full Israeli control. The arrangement was only meant to last five years.
The promise of a final peace deal collapsed with the Second Intifada in 2000. When the violence faded, talk of annexation began to resurface. Some Israelis argued that if the PLO couldn’t deliver peace, Israel should set its own borders. The 2005 withdrawal from Gaza hardened that view. After Hamas seized control of the Strip and turned it into a launching pad for rockets, the public realized that retreat invites terror. Many began saying that if Israel gives up land, it loses security; if it holds firm, it keeps both.
In 2012 the government commissioned a legal study that came to be known as the Levy Report. It concluded that Judea and Samaria were “not occupied” under international law because Jordan’s prior control lacked legal standing, and therefore Jewish settlement was legitimate. Though Israel never formally adopted the report, it strengthened those who argued that sovereignty would be lawful, moral, and overdue.
In the following years members of the Knesset introduced sovereignty bills almost annually—targeting the Jordan Valley, Ma’ale Adumim, or the Etzion Bloc. Netanyahu, ever the tactician, shelved them all. He promised that the right time would come, just not yet.
That moment seemed to arrive with Donald Trump. Trump unveiled his Middle East peace vision, the first American plan to endorse Israeli sovereignty over parts of Judea and Samaria—up to 30 percent, including all settlements. Netanyahu’s government was elated. For months he spoke of extending sovereignty within weeks, maps were drawn, and delegations met. Then came the offer from Abu Dhabi.
The United Arab Emirates proposed full normalization if annexation stopped. Under heavy American pressure, Netanyahu paused the plan and took the deal. The Abraham Accords were signed that August, transforming Israel’s relations with the Arab world.
Netanyahu assured supporters that annexation was only postponed. “There is no change in my plan to apply sovereignty in Judea and Samaria in coordination with the United States,” he told them. They believed him. But Trump lost the 2020 election, and Joe Biden buried the issue. For four years, sovereignty talk went quiet.
By 2023 it was back. After the Hamas invasion that October, Israel plunged into what is perhaps its most brutal war. In the background, Judea and Samaria smoldered but did not fully ignite. The Palestinian Authority clung to coordination with Israel. Yet inside the coalition, ministers revived the sovereignty question. If the world was preparing to recognize a Palestinian state, they said, Israel should act first to recognize its own sovereignty.
Then the calls grew louder. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich demanded that Israel annex 82 percent of the territory—nearly all of Area C—citing European governments that had recognized Palestine as the trigger. “If they can recognize a Palestinian state,” he declared, “we can recognize our sovereignty over our homeland.” The Gulf states warned him off. The UAE and Bahrain sent messages that annexation would destroy their new alliances. Saudi Arabia signaled the same. Netanyahu seemed to heed the warnings. Through the summer, he kept the idea on ice, for awhile.
Then this week, while Israel navigates a fragile ceasefire with Hamas and a web of negotiations involving Americans, Qataris, Saudis, and Egyptians, a group of lawmakers forced the issue. Their goal was transparent: make Netanyahu choose between his base and his foreign patrons. He chose to boycott the vote. The bills passed preliminary readings anyway, with help from opposition members who wanted to embarrass the government. Likud punished its rebels, the opposition mocked the chaos, and the far-right declared victory. No one pretended the votes would change policy. Three more readings, a committee process, and a prime minister’s signature still stand in the way. Yet symbolism matters in Israel.
The Islamist Factor: Hawks Waiting in the Wings
Every mention of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria races through the propaganda mills of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and Tehran’s clerics. They call themselves guardians of Jerusalem, but their “cause” has never been liberation—it is conquest.
They seek a world where Jews are subjects, not citizens, or ideally erased. Any Arab regime that makes peace with Israel becomes a heretic in their creed, useful only until the next betrayal. In their doctrine, deceit in service of jihad is a virtue, not a sin. The concept is taqiyya—lying for the cause. That is why “peace” with Islamists must never be left unwatched. Israel learned this again on October 7, when Hamas shattered a ceasefire it had sworn to keep. Agreements with those who sanctify deceit demand vigilance, because for them, truth ends where strategy begins.
So when Israel even hints at applying sovereignty, these same actors celebrate. They treat it as vindication—their proof that diplomacy is a fraud and that only violence pays. Within hours of the Knesset vote, Hamas declared that “resistance” must continue, called for a new intifada, and warned that any Arab leader who cooperates with Israel “is complicit in the theft of Palestinian land.”
It is the same chant they used in 2020, when annexation was first debated, the same promise to make Israel “bite his fingers in remorse.” They never tire of the ritual. Their politics run on blood, not negotiation. And if sovereignty moves forward, Hamas and Islamic Jihad will light the fuse again—rockets from Gaza, shootings in Judea and Samaria, suicide cells revived, sermons calling for Jewish deaths recited as prayer. Though, it will only be an excuse—not that they need one, you only need to look at their telegram channels on an off day to see the gist doesn’t shift.
Hezbollah has warned that annexation is a “Zionist plot” its “resistance axis” will confront it with force. Iran’s Supreme Leader pledged that Tehran would “eliminate the evil threat” of Israeli annexation. Iran thrives on crisis. It needs the Arab street enraged to distract from its collapsing economy and the protests it beats down at home. Its operatives already tell its factions in Judea and Samaria to prepare a “day of rage.”
Annexation gives Iran and its proxies a script written for them: Israel wants “land not peace,” the Jews are thieves, and the Palestinians have a holy duty to strike back.
The danger does not stop with militias. Islamist political networks—the Muslim Brotherhood foremost among them—have built an entire business model around incitement. They use any pretext to rattle their own regimes’ ties with Israel. When the United States moved its embassy to Jerusalem in 2018, those networks organized the riots. Annexation would be their next jackpot.
Egypt’s President Sisi and Jordan’s King Abdullah maintain peace with Israel while balancing angry populations and avoid assassination attempts. The Brotherhood in Cairo would stage mass marches. Jordan’s majority-Palestinian population could erupt and further threaten the kingdom’s stability. Each sermon would slow the intelligence and trade links that now tie Israel to its neighbors.
And then there is the Western front—the intellectual one. Islamists have spent decades preparing Europe and North America to see Jewish sovereignty as illegitimate. They call it “occupation.” They brand returning Jews as “settlers.” They have done this through UN resolutions, university departments, NGOs, and media repetition so constant that it has become reflex. The West now parrots the language of its adversaries. Many diplomats who can’t find Judea on a map insist that Jewish presence there violates “international law,” though no such law exists. The League of Nations Mandate of 1922 recognized the Jewish right to settle the land. No Arab state ever owned it. Jordan’s nineteen-year occupation ended in 1967. There has never been a sovereign “Palestine.” Yet Islamist propaganda has so saturated polite Western conversation that many educated people think the Jews are the usurpers in their own homeland. This is no accident. It is long-term psychological warfare. It turns the victims of centuries of exile into villains and recasts the aggressors as victims. The West, ever hungry for moral simplicity, swallowed it whole.
That the same Arab-Islamic bloc now condemning “annexation” would never permit a Jewish state of any kind if it could help it. Their quarrel is not over borders. It is over existence. They rejected partition in 1947, peace in 1967, and normalization ever since because a sovereign Jewish state defies the logic of Islamic supremacy. In their worldview, Jews are permitted dhimmi status—protected but inferior—not equality or sovereignty. Annexation touches that nerve. It says aloud what they deny: the Jews are home and no longer asking permission.
Washington sees the stakes through a different lens. The United States is trying to build a coalition to stabilize postwar Gaza—Arab funding, Arab troops, Arab legitimacy. None of that survives annexation. Arab leaders will not sign onto a reconstruction plan while their own populations are chanting about stolen land. American officials have been blunt with Jerusalem: you can have quiet borders and deeper Arab cooperation, or you can have an annexation brawl. Pick one. That is why Trump’s team, despite its sympathy for Israel, keeps pressing Netanyahu to hold back.
Israel’s enemies have primed the world for this moment. They have rewritten language, history, and law to turn Jewish sovereignty into a crime scene. They have trained the West to echo their lies. The annexation debate therefore lands in a world already misinformed by design.
If Israel moves now, it walks straight into the trap they built. Sovereignty is a right. But timing is strategy. And giving the Islamists their next propaganda victory before the world relearns the truth would be a mistake paid for in blood.
Scenarios Ahead: Four Paths and Their Perils
The sovereignty discussion has cracked open Israel’s next dilemma. Where does the country go from here? Four paths lie ahead, each demanding a different price.
The first is full annexation. This would mean applying Israeli law to every Jewish community in Judea and Samaria and, in practice, to most of Area C. It’s the vision written into the broad sovereignty bill now sitting in committee. For it to pass, Netanyahu would need to bend to political pressure or see his coalition reshaped by forces determined to act.
The state would then face the mechanics of absorbing large new populations and territory. The Justice Ministry would need to extend the entire Israeli legal code. Police districts would replace IDF brigades.
The first challenge would come fast: how to handle Arab villages surrounded by newly annexed land. Would they stay under the Palestinian Authority as isolated pockets, or come under Israeli administration? Without clear definitions, annexation could collapse into legal confusion, a nightmare for the bureaucracy.The diplomatic and security consequences would be harder still. President Trump has already said annexation would end U.S. support—it’s a coin flip as to how it turns out, but a massive risk to say the least. Relations with the Abraham Accord states would snap. Europe would threaten sanctions. The Palestinian Authority would dissolve agreements and abandon coordination, which could leave Israel responsible for millions of Arabs in areas A and B.
Military officials have warned that annexation could ignite widespread unrest and overwhelm Israeli forces still depleted from Gaza. A third intifada is not a prophecy, but it’s a risk the IDF takes seriously.
The “full annexation” path is Israel against nearly everyone at once, again. Even those inside the nationalist camp who believe in Israel’s historic right to the land admit that moving too fast would carry a steep cost.The second path is limited annexation—the blocs-first approach. Israel could choose one area to test the waters. Ma’ale Adumim, the city of forty thousand just east of Jerusalem, is the obvious candidate. Many Israelis see it as part of Jerusalem’s natural orbit, and most international peace maps have quietly conceded that it would remain Israeli in any deal. Annexing Ma’ale Adumim would let Israel argue that it is simply formalizing reality. Even this smaller move would bring consequences: Gulf states have warned that any annexation crosses their red lines. Still, Israeli analysts note that a blocs-first plan would be easier to defend at home. It brings almost no Arab population into the state and satisfies voters who want to see sovereignty applied somewhere. The danger is momentum. Once one city is annexed, others will demand equal treatment.
The third option is quiet integration—de facto sovereignty without a formal declaration. Israel has already begun this process. Administrative control of parts of Area C has shifted from military hands to civilian ministries. Bezalel Smotrich, as finance minister, holds authority to oversee settlement planning. Outposts have been legalized. Police patrols in the territories have expanded. Infrastructure budgets treat many settlements as part of Israel proper. There is no announcement, just steady normalization. Each small act passes under the world’s radar. Collectively, they erase the distinction between Israel and Judea and Samaria. For Netanyahu, this slow approach has always been useful. It pleases the nationalist base by showing movement while avoiding the shock of formal annexation. Critics abroad call it a creeping land-grab. Israelis who support it call it realism: strengthen your hold, let the outrage fade, move again. The pattern repeats. The risk for the prime minister is political. His coalition partners want visible recognition, not quiet adjustments. Their voters expect a flag, not a footnote. If Netanyahu can’t deliver a symbolic win, the pressure for open annexation will return.
The fourth path is a freeze. Netanyahu, boxed in by Trump’s threats and Arab warnings, could shelve the issue. He might trade concessions elsewhere—tougher measures against the Palestinian Authority, increased budgets for religious education, or promises of future sovereignty debates—in exchange for discipline within the coalition. Washington could sweeten the deal with additional aid or strategic guarantees. Trump might offer a defense pact, a promise on Iran, or approval for new arms sales. Riyadh could provide the real prize: normalization talks. If the crown prince moves closer to open relations with Israel, Netanyahu could present restraint as a patriotic act that secures peace with the Arab world. That argument has worked before. The challenge is keeping the coalition intact when Likud’s partners have real constituencies that want results. They speak for voters who believe Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria is a moral and historical duty. If they decide Netanyahu traded away that cause for another round of diplomacy, they could bring down the government.
If a freeze holds, Israel would return to the familiar rhythm that has defined the Netanyahu years: steady settlement growth, limited international friction, no formal boundary changes. The crisis with Washington and the Gulf would cool, and attention would drift back to Gaza and Iran. It’s a temporary calm, not a resolution. The deeper question—how to balance Israel’s historical claim to its land with the realities of modern power politics—will remain. The prime minister’s skill has always been survival through delay. Whether that skill can still hold his current coalition together is a test yet to come.
The Stakes and the Choices
For many Israelis, applying sovereignty in Judea and Samaria is not a novelty. It is a straightforward claim: Shiloh and Hebron belong inside the state just as Tel Aviv does. It ends an abnormal legal setup and blocks the birth of a hostile Palestinian state next door.
This week exposed the hard truth behind that conviction. Annexation is not a paperwork change. It triggers geopolitics. Touch it now and Israel risks shaking the foundations of its security relationships and diplomacy. In 2020 Israel traded annexation plans for peace with the UAE and Bahrain, the core of the Abraham Accords. Hold back then, gain regional ties. In 2025 the offer comes in reverse. Washington and key Arab partners are saying: if you move on annexation, Gaza stabilization and normalization collapse; if you pause, we will help you secure both.
The sovereignty bills now in play are more signal than substance. They are a roar from a large camp inside Israel that is done waiting for a Palestinian partner and wants to assert a historic right. That roar is real. The veto abroad is louder, for now. It is rare to see an Israeli prime minister constrained so openly by a friendly White House, rarer still when that White House is Trump’s. This is the bind. Pursue an ideological goal, or preserve vital alliances and the quiet earned at great cost. Netanyahu has built a career on protecting Israel’s security and its standing in the West. That instinct pulls him toward shelving annexation again. His partners to his right are tired of delay. They want a date, not a promise. The collision between those impulses approaches.
If Israel steps back, it pays a price. The fight will grow more bitter, and the internal split will deepen. If Israel pushes ahead, it must do so with eyes wide open. It would elevate an ancient claim over the pillars that keep the country strong today: the American alliance, the tacit Arab partnership, the relative calm of recent years.
The debate rages beyond the Knesset floor: in the West Wing, and in royal courts in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi. The effects will carry for decades. As Education Minister Yoav Kisch told the plenum, “I believe in sovereignty… but how we do it matters.” That is the fight now. Not whether Israel owns its story, but whether the price of acting this moment is worth paying.
Thanks for reading. Hit reply with feedback, topic requests, or people you want me to interview. I read every note.
If you want the long-form case behind Israel Brief:
Rooted Truth: Israel’s Case Against the Deniers — a clear dismantling of the “apartheid/colonialism/genocide” libels and the history and law they ignore.
Holiday From History: The West’s Delusion of Peace and the Return of War — how comfort blurred judgment after the Cold War, and why rebuilding the ethic of guardianship is urgent.
See you in the morning!
— Uri Zehavi · Intelligence Editor, Israel Brief
With Modi Zehavi · Data + Research Analyst
🔒 Tip? Send it securely via signal: (@Uri.30) or proton: ([email protected]).