Annexation vs. security: Israel’s strategic choice in a tense moment – editorial

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s recent call for West Bank annexation has put Israel at a decisive crossroads, one that invites scrutiny for the timing of his statements.

Smotrich envisions a bold step toward Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, eyeing the incoming Trump administration as a potential ally. But amid rising regional threats – from Iran’s relentless drive for influence to the ongoing conflicts with Hezbollah and Hamas – Israel faces far more urgent priorities that demand focus.

Smotrich said on Monday that he hoped Israel would extend sovereignty into the West Bank in 2025 and that he would push the government to engage the incoming administration to gain Washington’s support. Israel’s new foreign minister, Gideon Sa’ar, separately said that while no decision was made, the issue could come up in talks with the future US administration in Washington.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long used annexation as a political lever, and Smotrich’s remarks may very well serve as a trial balloon to gauge Washington’s stance under President-elect Donald Trump. But Israel’s national security interests would be far better served by focusing on de-escalating regional conflicts and working closely with the US on countering Iran.

The man reportedly tapped by Trump to be his secretary of state, Senator Marco Rubio, is known for his assertive stance on Iran and aligns with Israel’s position on containing Iranian influence. With Rubio as a diplomatic ally, Israel could rally significant support from the US to counteract Iranian ambitions rather than risking a new front by pursuing annexation.

West Bank annexation fraught with risks 

Israel’s push for sovereignty in Judea and Samaria is not a new idea; Smotrich’s faction has long advocated for annexation, claiming historical and security justifications. However, extending sovereignty over the West Bank – a region Palestinians envision as part of a future state – is fraught with risks, especially in the context of international law and global perception.

Most world powers view the West Bank settlements as illegal, and a unilateral move to apply sovereignty could lead to severe diplomatic isolation for Israel.

It could also threaten to isolate Israel from its Arab allies – including signatories of the previous Trump administration’s Abraham Accords – and Saudi Arabia, whose consideration of warmer ties with Israel appears to be doubtful after recent contact between the Saudis and Iranians and comments by Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza.

Beyond the diplomatic consequences, annexation could lead to increased violence and unrest in the West Bank, triggering a potentially incomprehensible Third Intifada that Israel is ill-prepared to handle while already facing threats on multiple fronts. 

The current wars with Hamas in Gaza and the persistent shadow of Hezbollah in Lebanon are complex enough without adding a new battleground. Until those wars are won, there should never be any thought of further adding fuel to the proverbial fire.

Israel’s immediate focus should be on securing itself against the existential threat posed against it by Iran. An annexation move could further embolden Iran to destabilize the region by arming its proxies, potentially drawing more factions into open conflict with Israel. This is a risk Israel cannot afford, especially when there is an opportunity to strengthen the anti-Iran alliance with the US under Trump.

Rubio, a staunch advocate for a robust US foreign policy against Iran, has the potential to bring the support Israel needs to counteract Tehran. With his experience in foreign policy and his views on confronting adversaries like Iran, Rubio’s appointment could be a pivotal opportunity to deepen US-Israel security cooperation. 

Rather than antagonizing international support with a divisive annexation move, Israel would do well to channel this support toward a consolidated anti-Iranian front.

Netanyahu’s government must consider whether the pursuit of sovereignty in the West Bank aligns with Israel’s core national interests or serves more as a tool to appease certain factions within his coalition. With Iran’s influence seeping into Israel’s borders through its proxies, every resource, every diplomatic relationship, and every strategic decision must be oriented toward neutralizing these threats.

By holding off on annexation, Israel could avoid stirring up unnecessary tensions, focusing instead on securing strong partnerships with the US and regional allies. This is a time to consolidate allies, not to alienate them by reigniting controversies that could spiral into new conflicts.