Annexation of the West Bank isn’t a new idea. Zionists always had their eye on what they call Judea and Samaria, the actual sites of biblical significance as opposed to the coastal and desert areas they conquered in 1948. As soon as Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan in 1967, its leaders began discussing annexation.
In fact, Netanyahu’s effort isn’t much different from Yigal Allon’s 1967 proposal (the so-called Allon Plan). It’s still not clear exactly how the Israeli government will proceed—apparently it intends to annex Area C, including the Jordan Valley, although some officials reportedly want to claim the entire West Bank—but the idea is to make a viable Palestinian state impossible, in keeping with Allon’s vision.
It’s difficult to evaluate the consequences of Israel’s effort without knowing details of the plan. Yet we can discern exactly how the state intends to proceed beyond the timing and specificity of annexation. Israel wants the entire West Bank, a desire that precedes the state’s existence. Annexation is only a detail.
Israel knows nothing but conquest. Desire for land relieved of its Indigenous population guides the overarching purpose of all policy, even that presented as conciliatory. We needn’t have access to secret meetings to understand how the settler colony will behave.
Too much emphasis on the particulars of annexation can suggest that certain options are better for Palestinians when in reality all options are equally bad so long as Zionism continues to exist. If Israel declines to pursue annexation this year, the desire to annex doesn’t go away. The state will revive it next year or the year after. The problem is one of ideology, not of policy.
In the interim, though, it matters what Israel decides to do. Thousands of Palestinians face the prospect of displacement and privation. Arab states are threatening various (non-military) reprisals—abrogation of peace deals and diplomatic relations, for example. (Will they actually act on those threats? Doubtful.) The Palestinian Authority has absolved itself of extant treaty obligations, a welcome step, although it’s yet to be determined if the decision will have any material effect (also doubtful). Israel has recently cultivated stronger relations with Gulf Arab monarchies. A brazen act such as annexation will make those relationships more precarious.
It wouldn’t be prudent to deem annexation a distraction, but annexation shouldn’t distract us from the fact that Israel has engaged in continuous theft for over seven decades. That it even has the power to annex Palestinian land illustrates how Oslo and every subsequent effort at peace were a farce. In fact, it’s nonsensical to suggest that Israel’s intention was ever to achieve peace in the first place. The peace process was always calibrated to maximize Israeli control over land, resources, and movement. From this vantage point, Oslo wasn’t the failure many experts ascribe to it.
Of interest is Netanyahu’s aggressive pursuit of annexation, supplemented by equally aggressive rhetoric. Annexation was his pet issue in last year’s harshly contested election. He’s pandering to his base, sure, but also acting on a sense of urgency. Democratic and moderate Republican leaders prefer to maintain an illusion of evenhandedness while enabling Israel to slowly destroy Palestinian society. Trump, on the other hand, permits Netanyahu’s accelerationist tendencies. Netanyahu sees an opportunity to take advantage of that permissiveness. He’s probably correct. The Trump administration has given no indication that it will mount a serious effort against annexation. And both men preside over settler colonies enamored of aggression.
The USA thus proves once again to be the ultimate arbiter of Palestine’s destiny. Issues that so many consider extemporaneous to Palestine—presidential elections, policing, economic policy—in fact affect Palestine’s ability to survive. Imperialism deoxidizes the blood of the nation.
People in the United States therefore have a role to play in Palestine’s survival even if they view the so-called conflict as intractable or unrecognizable. Systematic disposal of Palestine in narratives of justice in the USA is more dangerous than Israeli threats of annexation. No anti-capitalist or anti-imperialist formation will be effective if it leaves Zionism unscathed.
This month, the United States unleashed the military against its own citizens (as it has done throughout its history) and so connections between the brutality of domestic policing and overseas imperialism are now in great evidence. Annexation of the West Bank fits into analysis of public space in the United States—how it is systematically restricted, patrolled, exploited, and privatized. Ruling classes around the world manipulate civic geographies for the exclusive use of their martial and corporate mercenaries, a phenomenon to which Zionism is central.
Annexation, then, isn’t merely a geopolitical strategy. It is the material expression of an ideological vision. We can avoid wonkish remonstration and instead assess the utility of rejectionism, insurgency, and armed resistance. We can illustrate that annexation does nothing to change poor conditions for people in the Gaza Strip or in refugee camps around the region. And we can be adamant that Palestinian dispossession, not Zionist angst, is the matter of greatest concern.
In short, we oppose annexation, but the position occurs in context of an opposition to Zionism, whose mere existence makes annexation (and much worse) a foregone conclusion, timed according to the settler’s ravenous appetite.
Valuable commentary
But whose responsibility is it to deal with Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority that for more than a decade has collaborated with Israeli security services in repressing opposition to the occupation and why has this not been a subject of discussion going well back before the latest talk of “annexation?”