---

Trump’s ‘No West Bank Annexation’ Veto Isn’t What It Sounds Like, Expert Says

Debbie Weiss

---

US President Donald Trump speaks at the White House in Washington, DC, US, Sept. 25, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Israelis were divided after US President Donald Trump declared on Thursday that he would not allow annexation of the West Bank, with some warning that blocking sovereignty could endanger national security and even risk another attack similar to the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, invasion, while others argued the decision spared the country a costly international confrontation.

But legal scholar Eugene Kontorovich told The Algemeiner that Trump’s wording was being misunderstood, and that his remarks may still leave space for Israel to extend partial sovereignty in the West Bank, part of the ancestral Jewish homeland where the Palestinian Authority (PA) exercises limited self-governance.

Right-wing lawmakers, many of whom entered Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition on promises of sovereignty, condemned Trump’s remarks as outside interference and urged Netanyahu to press ahead regardless.

“Israel is a sovereign state. No international actor, even a great beloved friend, can dictate to us how to treat our land,” Likud MK Dan Illouz said.

Zvi Sukkot of the Religious Zionism party argued that sovereignty “does not depend on any external factor, however friendly.” Another unnamed senior official went further, telling Hebrew media that Trump’s remarks amounted to “a real terror attack.”

Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Thursday that he had also vetoed the idea of annexation in a closed-door conversation with Netanyahu. 

“I will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank. It’s not going to happen,” he said. “There’s been enough. It’s time to stop now.”

Kontorovich, who has long argued that the debate is being mischaracterized, noted that the term “annexation” itself is misleading. 

“Annexation implies taking territory that isn’t yours,” he told The Algemeiner. “What Israel has discussed is applying its civil law to parts of Area C in the West Bank that are already under Israeli jurisdiction. The Israeli government has made it clear it is not talking about diminishing the territory governed by the Palestinian Authority.”

Area C is the portion of the West Bank where Israel assumed full civilian and military control after the Oslo Accords, an agreement between Israeli and Palestinian authorities, three decades ago.

Trump’s comments on Thursday, Kontorovich argued, were not necessarily incompatible with Israeli mainstream positions. 

“The most literal understanding of Trump’s remarks is that he doesn’t want Israel to take over the entire West Bank. Since nobody is talking about that, it leaves room for other possibilities,” Kontorovich said.

Kontorovich suggested that applying Israeli law to major settlement blocs would be “a meaningful way to push back on the extremely harmful and dangerous British and French diplomatic efforts” to recognize a Palestinian state, while also improving Israel’s security “in a way that will redound to American benefit.”

Former Israeli Ambassador to Washington Michael Oren struck a more cautious note in comments to The Algemeiner, noting that Trump had “long opposed annexation of all or part” of the West Bank, but added that “annexation would be a justifiable response to the Palestinian Authority’s violation of its commitment under the Oslo Accords not to unilaterally change the status of the territories.” He echoed Kontorovich’s view that “annexation can certainly help meet Israel’s security needs.”

However, Oren warned that, “increasingly isolated internationally and facing serious threats of sanctions, Israel is extremely dependent on Trump’s support. We must be careful not to jeopardize it.”

Notably, both Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who have long promoted annexation and even branded 2025 as “the year of sovereignty,” did not respond publicly to Trump’s remarks. Days earlier, however, Smotrich echoed Illouz, saying, “The days when other nations decided our future are over.”

Yossi Dagan, head of the Samaria Regional Council, argued that only formal sovereignty could prevent the emergence of a “terrorist state” in the West Bank.

“[Netanyahu] must tell Trump: We will not allow another Oct. 7 — I am applying sovereignty,” he said prior to Trump’s comments.  

Kontorovich, who is a senior research fellow at the Washington DC-based Heritage Foundation, also emphasized deterrence. 

“Right now, Palestinian terrorists think that committing an Oct. 7 attack is a net winner. To discourage that, you need to create a disincentive, and an Israeli application of sovereignty to parts of the West Bank is a way of doing that,” he said. 

Some voices on the political right offered a different take. Israel Hayom columnist Ariel Kahana wrote that Trump “saved Israel from itself,” arguing that such a move at this point could trigger severe diplomatic and economic consequences. He added that Trump’s decision now gives Netanyahu a “crushing answer” to coalition partners who keep pressing for sovereignty. 

Kahana faulted the settlement movement for not offering a trade of shelving sovereignty in exchange for France – which led European nations in recognizing a Palestinian state at the UN — dropping its recognition of “Palestine,” saying Israel is now left with the worst of both outcomes: recognition of a Palestinian state abroad and no sovereignty at home.

Both Trump and Netanyahu lambasted the decision by a handful of Western countries — including France, the UK, Canada, and Australia — to officially recognize a Palestinian state, describing the move as a reward for Hamas’s terrorism and an invitation for Palestinians to continue waging war against Israel. Neither leader addressed the issue of potential West Bank annexation during their addresses to the United Nations General Assembly in New York this week.

After his meeting with Trump on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, during which he declared recognition of a Palestinian state, French President Emmanuel Macron told France24 that when it came to the West Bank “the Europeans and the Americans are on the same page,” adding that “annexation was a red line for the US.”

Macron further warned that annexation would carry “grave consequences” for Israel and has made it clear that Paris sees a ban on sovereignty moves as essential to keeping the two-state option of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict alive.

Ynet analysts reached a similar conclusion to Kahana, noting that Trump’s declaration “in some sense helps Netanyahu with his base and the extremists in his government,” since it relieves him of rejecting coalition demands directly.

Emirati officials told Washington earlier this month that annexation would inflict serious damage on the Abraham Accords and threaten the entire framework of Gulf-Israel ties. The UAE, which signed a normalization deal with Israel during Trump’s first term, has consistently viewed annexation as a major violation of the bargains that underpinned that agreement.

Israeli journalist and commentator Yair Sherki stressed that this is precisely why Trump cannot allow annexation to proceed. Even if Netanyahu were prepared to risk the Abraham Accords for sovereignty, Sherki noted, Trump will not — because the accords are his own signature achievement in the region.

Sherki added that postponement of a sovereignty declaration until after Netanyahu meets Trump on the sidelines of the UN “signals a fizzling out. If it doesn’t happen by the end of the [Sukkot] holidays, it won’t happen.”

Kontorovich concluded that applying Israeli civil law to the Jordan Valley — an area with virtually no Palestinian presence and long supported even by centrist and left-leaning lawmakers — could be one such option. “If Israel applies its civil law to the Jordan Valley, I don’t think anyone could say that it annexed the West Bank,” he said.

---

---