Quid pro quo: West Bank annexation or Gaza withdrawal?
As negotiations over Gaza’s future intensify, a controversial proposal has resurfaced from an unexpected source. Jared Kushner, former presidential advisor and Donald Trump’s son-in-law, recently stated, “Gaza’s waterfront property could be very valuable … from Israel’s perspective, I would do my best to move the people out and then clean it up.” Echoing this sentiment, President Trump has called on Jordan and Egypt to absorb Palestinian refugees from Gaza, stating, “So we clean out that whole thing.”
Jordan and Egypt have flatly rejected Trump’s suggestion.
The president’s comments come at a pivotal moment as Steven Witkoff, the White House’s Middle East envoy, prepares to lead negotiations on the second phase of the Israel-Hamas ceasefire agreement. These talks aim to establish a permanent ceasefire and secure the exchange of remaining hostages in Gaza for Palestinian prisoners held by Israel.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu finds himself under mounting pressure from two sides: international calls, including from the Trump administration, to end the war and demands from his right-wing coalition partners to continue the war and establish settlements in Gaza, even if that meant abandoning the remaining hostages held by Hamas. This tension has reignited debates over Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories.
The debate over settlements can be traced back to August 2005, when Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s government evacuated 8,600 Jewish settlers from 21 communities in the Gaza Strip, transferring control to the Palestinian Authority. Nearly two decades later, Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition partners attribute Hamas’s military buildup — culminating in the attack on October 7 — to this disengagement.
Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a key figure in Netanyahu’s coalition, views the current conflict as an opportunity for reversal. “We have a historic opportunity which cannot be missed to establish a new and true Middle East where west of the Jordan [River] there is room for one and only one national entity—the state of the Jewish people,” he declared. Simultaneously, Smotrich is campaigning to halt the second phase of the ceasefire negotiations, advocating instead for what he calls a “total victory.”
Netanyahu may attempt to reconcile these competing pressures by proposing a strategic compromise: ending the war and withdrawing from Gaza in exchange for U.S. support for Israeli annexation of parts of the West Bank and Jordan Valley. Such a deal would appeal to his right-wing base, fulfilling a long-standing goal to incorporate “Judea and Samaria” into Israel.
The issue of settlements has deep historical roots. After the 1967 war, Israel began establishing Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Today, over 500,000 settlers live in the occupied West Bank, making up approximately 5 percent of Israel’s population. These settlements remain one of the most contentious aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
International law considers the transfer of civilian populations to occupied territories a violation of the Geneva Convention, a stance reaffirmed by the International Court of Justice in August 2024 and the UN General Assembly shortly afterward.
American-Israeli relations can be considered unique in the annals of international relations. Israel is a small country, highly dependent militarily, economically, and diplomatically on a superpower. Yet, it has been able to avoid or rebuff significant pressure from the United States that could have forced it to change course on its conflict with the Palestinians. Explanations for this anomalous relationship abound, including geopolitics, ideology, religion, domestic politics, and the considerable influence of pro-Israeli lobbies. While each administration had its own distinct ideological compass and foreign policy agenda, the protracted Israeli-Palestinian conflict has remained an ongoing core concern shared by all.
President Lyndon Johnson set an early tone in September 1968, while the settlements project was still in its embryonic phase, warning that “Israel must persuade its Arab neighbors and the world community that Israel has no expansionist designs on their territory.” His State Department explicitly cited the Geneva Convention in opposing settlement activity.
The Nixon administration maintained this position. It emphasized that “Israel, as occupant of the territories seized during 1967, is bound by the Fourth Geneva Convention.”
President Carter’s administration took a categorical stance. He stated unequivocally that settlements were “illegal and an obstacle to peace.”
A significant policy shift occurred under President Reagan, who declared in February 1981: “I disagreed when the previous administration referred to them as illegal. They are not illegal.”
George H.W. Bush maintained Reagan’s approach while expressing opposition to settlement expansion. Secretary of State James Baker stated in 1991 that while settlements constituted “a serious obstacle to peace,” the administration no longer considered them illegal.
President Bill Clinton focused on the Oslo peace process while expressing concern about settlement expansion. In a 1996 letter to Netanyahu, he warned that settlement growth could “halt the progress made by the peace process.”
George W. Bush’s April 2004 letter to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon recognized that the substantial number of Jewish settlers already residing in the West Bank had created a fait accompli. Recognizing the permanence of major settlement blocs in the West Bank constituted another departure from previous US policy.
Under President Obama, the U.S. abstained in December 2016 when the Security Council approved resolution 2334, which stated that the settlements “had no legal validity.”
The first Trump administration marked a decisive shift, relocating the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and rejecting the settlements’ illegality. Trump also recognized Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights, breaking with international consensus.
The Biden administration has returned to a more critical stance, with Secretary of State Antony Blinken labeling settlements as “inconsistent with international law” and imposing unprecedented sanctions on violent settler groups.
Trump’s current messaging reflects a delicate balancing act. During a campaign visit to Dearborn, Michigan, he reassured the local Muslim and Arab community, “We have to get this whole thing over with,” emphasizing his desire for peace.
Simultaneously, he has positioned himself as a staunch supporter of Israel. His nominated ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, suggested that U.S. support for annexing West Bank settlements remains “a possibility.” The Trump administration also removed the sanctions placed on radical Jewish settlers, which were imposed by Biden.
This dual positioning complicates potential agreements with Netanyahu. While Trump might consider backing limited West Bank annexation in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, such a move could undermine broader regional objectives.
Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, Prince Faisal bin Farhan, recently reiterated that there will be “no normalization of ties with Israel without a Palestinian state.” Supporting annexation could jeopardize efforts to expand the Abraham Accords, a hallmark achievement of Trump’s first term.
For Netanyahu, an “annexation for withdrawal” deal with Trump might represent his best chance for political survival. However, the viability of such an arrangement remains uncertain, hinging on Trump’s unpredictable decision-making and rapidly evolving conditions on the ground. The outcome will profoundly shape Israeli politics, U.S. regional interests, and the future of Israeli-Palestinian relations.