Annexation Would Make Israel Bigger, Not Safer

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is hoping for U.S. approval to annex nearly a third of the West Bank. This would make Israel bigger — but less secure, more isolated and diminished in the eyes of the world. Israel’s strongest ally should be doing all it can to prevent this error.

Netanyahu is eager to act because the U.S. has presented him with an irresistible opportunity. The plan proposed by U.S. officials in January would allow for the immediate annexation of the Jordan Valley and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the assumption that these areas will become part of Israel in any final settlement. By acting unilaterally now, Netanyahu could fulfill a longtime ambition of Israeli right-wingers and American evangelicals, while setting a new baseline for future negotiations.

After the U.S. moved its embassy to Jerusalem, there were warnings of violence and international isolation — and these proved to be overblown. Perhaps Netanyahu believes the response to a unilateral annexation would be the same.

If so, he’s likely to be wrong. Annexation would be a far more consequential move, altering the status quo much more fundamentally. And it would also be illegal, violating United Nations resolutions that forbid the acquisition of territory by force.

Whatever diplomatic progress Israel has achieved in recent years would be undone. The European Union has warned that annexation might prompt a cutoff of research grants and possibly outright sanctions. Israel’s growing ties with Gulf nations and the Arab world more broadly would be threatened. So would its peace treaties with Jordan and possibly Egypt.

The issue could well undermine bipartisan support for Israel in the U.S. Democratic nominee Joe Biden has promised to reverse any U.S. recognition of such a move if he’s elected, which means that Netanyahu’s decision might have to be walked back in a little over six months.

Meanwhile, conditions on the ground could deteriorate swiftly. The Palestinian Authority is already slowing coordination with Israel, including on security. If there’s an upsurge of violence, Israeli forces might have to quell it themselves — at a time when they should be focused on external threats such as Hezbollah and Iran’s nuclear program. More than 200 retired Israeli security officials have come out against the idea.

Above all, unilateral annexation would foreclose the possibility of a negotiated peace settlement leading to a viable Palestinian state. A de facto one-state solution would force Israel to choose between granting full citizenship rights to a Palestinian majority or ruling over an apartheid state.

To be sure, Palestinian leaders have done little to advance their own cause. They’ve rejected previous land-for-peace deals far more generous than the one envisioned by the Trump administration. Even now, they could likely persuade the U.S. to restrain Netanyahu if they set out a credible counterproposal, especially one with Arab backing.

But none of that changes the fact that a unilateral annexation would be bad for Israel. Its friends in the U.S. should tell the Trump administration that giving Netanyahu the green light he’s seeking would be a grave mistake.

Editorials are written by the Bloomberg Opinion editorial board.

©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

BQ Install

Bloomberg Quint

Add BloombergQuint App to Home screen.