On Sunday, Britain joined Canada, Australia and Portugal in recognising Palestinian statehood. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the move a “huge reward for terrorism”, while far-Right ministers in his coalition floated the idea of annexing parts of the West Bank in response. This provocative step, however, risks profound military repercussions, transforming a simmering occupation into a full-scale insurgency at a time when the Israeli military is already stretched. On Tuesday, US President Donald Trump reportedly told Arab leaders that he would not permit this course of action.

This week, Economy Minister Nir Barkat — also of Netanyahu’s Likud party — wrote on X that “our real answer should be to dissolve the Palestinian Authority [and] apply sovereignty to Judea and Samaria.” Until October 2024, only a third of Israelis supported this position. But as of March this year, the figure had risen to 47%, according to the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI).

Annexation, potentially starting with Area C as set out in the Oslo Accords (60% of the West Bank), would formalise Israeli law over settlements, removing Palestinian governance and enabling unrestricted settlement expansion. The immediate fallout could lead to intensified attacks from Palestinian militants. Hamas and Islamic Jihad operatives in the West Bank, numbering in the thousands, could coordinate with those remaining in Gaza, launching rockets or ambushes from the Jenin and Nablus refugee camps. These areas are already militarised, with 40% of Jenin now an Israeli “military zone”. Israeli group Peace Now reports a surge in settler violence incidents since the war began almost two years ago, fuelling Palestinian recruitment for armed resistance.

Should Netanyahu order any annexation of the West Bank, Israel’s Defence Forces will be spread thinly across a 2,300-square-kilometre front, far larger than Gaza’s 365-square-kilometre area. Not only would this embolden the most extreme armed groups — potentially collapsing the fragile Palestinian Authority and ushering in a vacuum of governance — but it would give the IDF duties it could not possibly carry out. For example, assuming quasi-governing responsibilities over a hostile population would effectively compel soldiers to become administrators, police, and occupation enforcers, responsible for maintaining law and order, protecting settlements, and countering insurgents while navigating civilian unrest. Quite apart from what it would mean for Palestinians under occupation, annexation is unrealistic for an army heavily reliant on reservists who need to return to their normal, pre-war lives.

This means confronting guerrilla attacks in towns and villages with populations hostile to Israeli presence. The risk of ambushes, Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), and infiltration attempts from densely populated urban areas makes traditional military tactics difficult, while the sheer number of Palestinians — over 2.7 million in the West Bank — would require a constant, resource-intensive security presence. The IDF would face legal and moral dilemmas like those faced in Gaza: civilian casualties provoke international condemnation, but restraint emboldens militants.

And then there is regional and global diplomacy to consider. Jordan has warned that annexation endangers peace treaties. The UAE, a key Abraham Accords partner, labelled it a “red line”, and Saudi Arabia has threatened to collapse normalisation talks if Israel takes control of the West Bank. This would compromise Israel’s security, potentially leading to the closing of airspace, halting intelligence sharing, and emboldening Iran-backed proxies such as Hezbollah or the Houthis. Annexation would likely deepen Israel’s diplomatic isolation, inviting sanctions or arms embargoes when Tel Aviv ought to be re-engaging its receptive neighbours.

Although Israeli control in the West Bank has expanded since the October 7 attacks, annexation still may not happen. Unlike those in the far-Right of his coalition, Netanyahu is alarmed by the effect this would have on Israel’s relations with allies, which are imperative to the country’s security.

Ultimately, annexation as retaliation for Western countries recognising the state of Palestine would be disastrous. It offers no military victory, only perpetual conflict. Israel’s security hinges on restraint, diplomacy, and limited military operations. It must assure that the West Bank doesn’t become another Gaza: a fortress of resentment fuelling jihad.

---

Dr Limor Simhony Philpott is a writer and researcher focusing on antisemitism, extremism and defence.

limorsimhony

---