Do Trump’s picks Rubio, Huckabee signal his approval of West Bank annexation? - analysis

There was a time when Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich would have created a deep crisis with Washington by declaring, as he did this week, that 2025 is the year in which sovereignty will be applied to Judea and Samaria.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government’s opposition to a two-state resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has already been a source of deep tension with the Biden administration, which holds fast to Palestinian statehood based on the pre-1967 lines.

Casting his eyes to a future Trump administration and skipping over the last three months of the Biden one, to which he has been a persona non grata, Smotrich declared to his faction already on Monday that he intended to start working on a sovereignty plan.

“I have no doubt that President[-elect Donald] Trump, who showed courage and determination in his decisions in [his] first term, will support the State of Israel in this move,” he stated.

Netanyahu had already hinted that he, too, believes that this is possible, with his declaration Friday that Yechiel Leiter, a resident of the West Bank settlement of Eli and a former head of the Yesha Council’s foreign desk, would be the next ambassador to the United States, once Trump reentered the White House on January 20.

Given his residential status and his history, Leiter could only be accepted in a Washington that sees the West Bank settlements as legally legitimate, rather than holding to the Biden administration view that they are illegal. 

The International Court of Justice this year has also advised that West Bank settlements are illegal.

Trump's moves after he entered office in first term 

Trump first entered office in 2017 as a novice to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict who had campaigned on the bold declaration that he would resolve the long-standing dispute by making the “Deal of the Century.”

He took strong steps on Israel’s behalf, recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in that first year and relocating the US Embassy there in 2018. 

One year later US secretary of state Mike Pompeo announced that Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria are “not per se inconsistent with international law.” It was a step that reversed the US stance, held since at least 1978, that they are in fact illegal.

Trump followed in January 2020 with a peace plan that recognized a two-state resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, narrowing the territorial scope of that state.

His plan allowed for Israel to eventually annex 30% of the West Bank. This territory under consideration for sovereignty is half of what is known as Area C, and encompasses most of the existing West Bank settlements.

It was the most sweeping offer the US had made to Israel with regard to sanctioning its territorial hold on portions of the West Bank. The offer effectively erased the relevance of the pre-1967 lines to the final contours of a two-state resolution to the conflict.

The promised annexation, however, was suspended later that year, with Israel’s agreement, in exchange for the Abraham Accords, which created a rubric under which the Jewish state would normalize ties with its Arab neighbors.

The United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco finalized agreements with Israel, while Sudan’s has been delayed due to internal turmoil in that country.

Hope regained for the Israeli Right

Trump’s reelection on November 5 has given the Israeli Right a surge of hope that the sovereignty promised during his first term but snatched from Israel’s grasp at the last second can finally be achieved.

His announcements this week of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee as the next US ambassador to Israel and Florida Senator Marco Rubio as the next secretary of state have only served to strengthen that conviction.

Huckabee is no stranger to sovereign Israel or the West Bank, which he would refer to as Judea and Samaria. 

As a Southern Baptist pastor who has led many Christian tours to Israel, he has a deep respect for the common Judeo-Christian heritage found in that region, which is also known as the biblical heartland.

He has been so outspoken about his belief that Judea and Samaria should be included in Israel’s sovereign borders that he held a fundraiser for his 2015 White House run in the archaeological park outside of the Shiloh settlement.“I recognize Judea and Samaria as part of Israel,” he said at the time, adding that “it’s an important part of the security of Israel.”

He later told The Jerusalem Post that Israel has more of a connection to Shiloh than Americans have to Manhattan.

BuzzFeed in 2015 posted a video taken during Huckabee’s 2008 presidential run in which he can be heard, in a private conversation with supporters at a campaign stop, explaining that “there’s really no such thing as a Palestinian,” adding: “That’s been a political tool to try and force land away from Israel.”

Huckabee suggested that a Palestinian state would be better placed on land in Egypt, Syria, or Jordan, rather than in Israel’s biblical homeland.

During a visit to Israel after that failed bid, he also dismissed the formula by which Israel would give up parts of the homeland for peace.

“As an American, I do not feel that the Israelis are obligated or required to give up land in order to bring peace,” he said.

In an interview with Army Radio this week, in which he underscored that he does not set administration policy, Huckabee indicated that the application of sovereignty is certainly possible during Trump’s second term.

Rubio, who is also seen as a strong supporter of Israel, has also backed a two-state resolution to the conflict while supporting Israeli rights to portions of the West Bank. 

In a press release in 2017, posted on his website, he affirmed that “it is the policy of the United States to continue to seek a sustainable, just, and secure two-state solution to resolve the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.”

In a video conversation with the Israel Council on Foreign Relations, he said that a two-state solution would be an “ideal outcome” but that conditions do not exist for one, pointing in part to the antisemitism and corruption within the Palestinian Authority.

At issue for him has been the PA’s ties to terrorism. During a debate with Trump in 2016, he said, “A deal is not a deal when you are dealing with terrorists.”

Rubio has been clear he backs the legitimacy of West Bank settlements, referring to the region as Judea and Samaria in some of his press releases. 

He was among those politicians who had pushed the Trump administration to begin labeling Israeli products produced in West Bank settlements as “made in Israel,” even though sovereignty has not yet been applied to Area C of the West Bank, where the settlements are located.

Rubio has opposed the Biden administration’s policy of sanctioning radical Israelis, accusing it of undermining the Jewish state with “schizophrenic” policies. 

He has supported sanctions on the PA for the stipends it provides to Palestinians jailed for terrorist activity, including incidents in which civilians were killed.

Rubio has strongly opposed the reopening of the US Consulate-General in Jerusalem, which provided consular services to Palestinians. With respect to the United Nations, he has condemned Palestinian activity there against Israel and spoken of the importance of backing Israel when it comes to votes, as well legal action sought against it before the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice. Most importantly, he has supported Israel’s military campaign against Hamas in Gaza.

IN THE end, of course, it is Trump and not Huckabee or Rubio who will set the policies of his administration. 

The appointments themselves could also be seen as nods of appreciation to his voter base, given that Huckabee has Evangelical views, and Rubio, a Catholic, will be the first Latin American secretary of state.

Trump, however, also understands that his choices would also be viewed as important signals with respect to the policies his administration would take.

That would be particularly true, given that as a second-term president, he would have only the next four years to make his mark on the Israeli-Palestinian arena and would likely hit the ground running. 

That timetable is even tighter, given that larger policy issues regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will likely intersect with decisions the Trump administration will need to make regarding Gaza’s future in the aftermath of the October 7 war.

There are still over two months until January 20. In that time the world and region are looking for clues as to what Trump’s policy will be when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Choosing two men with such strong views on the legitimacy of the West Bank settlements, at a time when their status is being legally challenged in international courts, still makes a powerful statement about the potential sea change in Washington, which would in fact turn Smotrich’s words into prophecy.