Annexation, Settlements, and the One-State Threat

In the aftermath of October 7, Israel has been navigating an emotionally charged landscape. The unprecedented attacks by Hamas left a national scar and fueled deep anger, distrust, and a growing appetite for retaliation. For many, this trauma has shattered any lingering faith in the prospect of peaceful coexistence with the Palestinians. Against this backdrop, calls for annexing the West Bank have resurfaced with renewed intensity.

The rationale is simple: If the Gaza disengagement failed and coexistence appears unattainable, why not assert full sovereignty over all territory?

But this is precisely the moment when clear-eyed strategic thinking must prevail over emotion. Annexing the West Bank may offer short-term psychological or political satisfaction, but it poses long-term risks that could fundamentally endanger Israel’s identity, international standing, and ability to shape its future.

Annexation: Long-Term Solution or Emotional Reaction?

Proponents of annexation argue that Israel must take control of its historic lands, secure its borders once and for all, and project strength. Some believe that permanent Israeli rule over the West Bank is the only way to ensure security after the trauma of October 7. They see Oslo as a failure, the Palestinian Authority as weak or complicit, and the two-state solution as an illusion. For them, annexation seems like the final step in resolving a conflict that has long defied diplomatic efforts.

But this perspective overlooks both the demographic reality and the strategic cost. The core issue is not sovereignty or justice—it’s long-term viability. Israel must weigh not only what feels assertive today, but what is sustainable tomorrow.

Why Annexation Is a Strategic Trap

Annexing the West Bank would bring more than 2.7 million Palestinians under Israeli rule. This is not merely a territorial matter—it is a demographic and political dilemma. Unless Israel grants full rights to those Palestinians, it risks creating a permanent underclass, triggering accusations of apartheid and inviting escalating international condemnation. On the other hand, if it does offer full rights, it may lose its Jewish majority within a generation.

And herein lies the deeper danger: Entanglement. Once annexation occurs—or even a de facto annexation materializes through continued control and settlement expansion—reversing course becomes nearly impossible. In 20 or 30 years, after new roads are paved, bureaucracies are integrated, and populations are interwoven, the ability to extricate Israel from the West Bank—even if national interests demand it—would be gone.

What today might feel like a strategic assertion could, in time, become an irreversible trap. The state would no longer be managing borders—it would be grappling with identity. The central conflict would shift from one between a land struggle of two national groups to an internal struggle over citizenship, rights, and representation. This is not merely a moral concern. It is a strategic one.

The Coming Shift to a One-State Framework

The global conversation is already evolving. As faith in a two-state solution declines, many Palestinians and international actors are beginning to pivot toward a new paradigm: Equal rights in a single state. This would present Israel with an impossible choice—either accept a binational state that ends its Jewish character, or deny equal rights and face a prolonged, apartheid-like reality. In the global environment of the 21st century, no state can thrive in such a scenario.

This is the scenario annexation accelerates. As the distinction between Israel and the occupied territories fades—with settlements expanding, civil laws overlapping, and infrastructure merging—the one-state reality will become increasingly difficult to deny. The question will no longer be “Who controls what land?” but “Who has what rights?”

If this shift takes hold globally, Israel could face mounting diplomatic isolation, economic sanctions, and internal unrest—not because of the occupation per se, but because the world will no longer view the conflict as a border dispute, but as a civil rights crisis. In that scenario, strategic flexibility would vanish. The cost of delay would become existential.

Learning from Gaza: A Different Kind of Disengagement

Israel’s 2005 disengagement from Gaza is often cited as a reason to avoid unilateral withdrawal. The rise of Hamas and the surge in violence since then are viewed by some as proof that separation empowers extremists. But the lesson of Gaza is more nuanced. The problem wasn’t separation itself—it was the way it was executed.

In Gaza, Israel removed not only its civilian presence but also its military control, creating a vacuum that Hamas swiftly filled. Afterwards, Israel failed to act decisively, in effect tolerating occasional rocket fire towards its southern communities, as well as heavy militarization of the strip. The West Bank requires a different model: Strategic civilian separation without full abandonment of security oversight.

An effective plan would begin by consolidating major settlement blocs close to the Green Line—areas like Ma’ale Adumim, Gush Etzion, and Beitar Illit—where nearly 75% of settlers reside. These areas are already deeply integrated into Israeli infrastructure and, crucially, have long been understood—even in past negotiations such as Camp David, Taba, and Annapolis—as likely to remain part of Israel in any eventual two-state agreement. They can therefore be retained under a future border arrangement without fundamentally undermining the viability of a future Palestinian state.

Afterwards, Israel should immediately halt all construction in isolated settlements and areas deep within Palestinian population centers, to prevent further entanglement and maintain the option of separation.

At the same time, isolated settlements deep within Palestinian territory should slowly be dismantled. Their residents should be offered dignified relocation to the settlement blocs or Israel-proper to minimize social disruption. Meanwhile, Israel should maintain a military presence in critical areas—particularly the Jordan Valley—to monitor and dismantle terrorist infrastructure. This presence should not be confused with sovereignty. It is a security necessity, not a declaration of permanent rule.

Above all, Israel must refrain from declaring permanent borders or asserting sovereignty over Areas A and B. Strategic ambiguity offers flexibility, avoids demographic entanglement, and reduces international pressure, without surrendering claims or compromising security.

The Logic Behind Strategic Separation

This approach is grounded in strategic realism, not ideological concession. Israel cannot reform its hostile neighbors through peace processes—but it can deter them through strength. Prolonged civilian occupation delegitimizes Israel internationally and drains its moral and social cohesion. Security must come from physical control and deterrence, not political absorption.

Yet in recent years, the dominant strategy—managing the conflict without resolving it—has fostered creeping annexation, especially since the far-right government took over. The time for clarity has arrived. The choice is not between a two-state solution and annexation. It is between preserving Israel’s future flexibility or locking it into a one-state dynamic it cannot sustain.

Conclusion: Choosing the Future Over the Present

In the post-October 7 climate, Israel must resist the urge to act from pain and fear. Strategic separation, done with foresight and strength, is not capitulation. It is an assertion of national interest. It is the only path that avoids irreversible entanglement, demographic implosion, and global isolation.

In this moment of profound reckoning, Israel must choose not only what feels just today—but what ensures it remains the nation it was always meant to be. The temptation to annex may stem from fear, frustration, or a desire to project strength, but true strength lies in restraint guided by foresight. As with any complex challenge, the lesson is clear:

“Don’t bite off what you can’t chew, and don’t chew what you can’t digest.”

In this case, Israel can bite off the land—but it cannot digest it. The demographic reality makes this clear: Absorbing the West Bank means either granting equal rights to millions of Palestinians and risking the Jewish majority, or denying those rights and facing accusations of permanent apartheid. Neither option is sustainable. The illusion of control would mask a deeper crisis of identity, legitimacy, and cohesion that no military strength can solve.

Strategic separation isn’t about surrender—it’s about knowing the limits of power and the weight of consequences. That is the only path forward for a secure, democratic, and Jewish Israel.