Washington Rejects West Bank Annexation, Remains Cautious Amid Israeli Moves Deepening Occupation Control

The White House on Monday reiterated its opposition to Israel's annexation of the West Bank, emphasizing that maintaining stability in the occupied territories is a fundamental pillar of the American vision for Israel's security and for "peace" arrangements in the region. This came in response to the Israeli Security Cabinet's decision, which on Sunday approved a package of measures aimed at expanding Israeli administrative influence in areas of the West Bank that, under the Oslo Accords, are supposed to fall within the Palestinian Authority's jurisdiction.

A White House official said in a written statement distributed to journalists who requested comment on the Israeli decision: "President Trump has made it unequivocally clear that he does not support Israel's annexation of the West Bank." The official added that "the stability of the West Bank enhances Israel's security and is consistent with this administration's goal of achieving peace in the region."

However, the American statement appeared remarkably cautious, as it did not include a direct condemnation of the measures approved by Israel, nor did it address them in detail, even though observers consider them steps that affect the core of the existing arrangements since Oslo, by transferring administrative and sovereign powers from the Palestinian Authority to Israel, and expanding the Israeli government's ability to impose facts on the ground in disputed areas.

The measures were announced by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Defense Minister Israel Katz, following their approval by the Security Cabinet. They include allowing Jewish Israelis to directly purchase land in the West Bank, in addition to transferring the authority to issue building permits for Jewish settlements in Hebron—the largest city in the West Bank—from the Palestinian Authority to Israel. These amendments also strengthen Israeli control over two prominent religious sites in the southern West Bank: Rachel's Tomb near Bethlehem, and the Ibrahimi Mosque (Cave of the Patriarchs) in Hebron.

Analysts believe that Washington continues to adhere to rhetoric that rejects "annexation" as an announced concept, but avoids confronting the policies that produce de facto annexation step by step. Annexation, in the current reality, no longer requires a dramatic decision as much as it requires legal and administrative engineering that redistributes control over land, resources, planning, ownership, and the management of religious sites. This distinction allows the United States to reassure its Arab partners on the one hand, and avoid a direct political confrontation with a hardline Israeli government on the other, but at the same time leaves ample room for Israel to gradually change the reality in a way that is difficult to reverse.

The White House statement did not mention whether the US administration had conveyed its objection or concern to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government, nor did it include any reference to potential pressure or punitive measures. Similar American statements calling for "de-escalation" and "stability" in the West Bank have been repeated in recent months, especially following Israeli decisions related to settlement expansion or amendments to the powers of the civil administration.

Trump had hinted, upon his return to the White House (on December 20, 2025), that he was considering the possibility of declaring a supportive stance on West Bank annexation, a move that raised widespread questions about the future of traditional US policy. However, with escalating Israeli indications of moving in this direction, Arab allies of Washington expressed concern that annexation would undermine any realistic possibility of a two-state solution, and erode their willingness to participate in "day after" arrangements in Gaza after the war.

Last September, Trump announced that he would not "allow" Israel to annex the West Bank. However, the Israeli Knesset a month later approved two symbolic resolutions supporting annexation, in a move described as having caused discomfort to the US administration, particularly Vice President J.D. Vance, who was visiting Israel at the time, according to press reports.

In a second reading of the American position, it appears that the real red line is not the gradual policies themselves, but rather the official declaration of annexation, which carries significant political and regional costs. The administration realizes that any explicit declaration would put it in direct confrontation with its Arab partners and weaken its ability to build regional arrangements, especially in light of managing the Gaza file. Creeping annexation, however, is managed as a containable crisis as long as it does not turn into a final legal step. However, this distinction gives Israel room to maneuver: changing reality step by step, while Washington merely manages the repercussions instead of stopping the process.

Although Israel has so far avoided an official declaration of West Bank annexation, it has continued to push for measures that monitoring bodies say constitute de facto annexation, by expanding the powers of Israeli ministries within the West Bank and establishing administrative rules that give settlements a status closer to inside Israel than to the occupied territories. This reflects a political trend within the Netanyahu government, where the influence of the current advocating for full Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank is growing, with Smotrich emerging as one of the most prominent architects of this project.

During Netanyahu's last visit to the United States in late December, Trump's aides raised their concerns about developments in the West Bank, as reported by American media at the time. These concerns focused on three issues: the escalation of settler violence without accountability, the acceleration of settlement construction, and Israel's continued withholding of billions of dollars in tax revenues belonging to the Palestinian Authority, which pushed the Palestinian Authority to the brink of financial collapse.

American circles fear that weakening or collapsing the Palestinian Authority would lead to a security vacuum in the West Bank, opening the door to a widespread explosion that could threaten not only Palestinian stability but also Israeli security, and undermine Washington's ability to manage regional issues in the post-war phase.

While the White House reiterates its rejection of annexation, the gap between American statements and actual Israeli actions is widening. The measures that transfer planning, construction, ownership, and religious site management powers from the Palestinian Authority to Israel have no less impact than official annexation, because they gradually redefine the rules of control. In the absence of direct American pressure, the scene is heading towards a new reality in which the West Bank is managed by the logic of administrative dominance, not by a path of political settlement.