Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
It's been nearly four weeks since former U.S. President Donald Trump said he'd soon reveal his stance on the issue of enacting Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria. If he gives the go-ahead, what would that mean for Israel, the Palestinians, and the wider region?
Would this move strengthen security and stability—or trigger a global backlash? And why are Christian conservatives and U.S. Republicans rallying behind it?
Dan Perry, former chief editor of the Associated Press (AP) for the Middle East, Africa, and the Caribbean, warned that Israel should not annex the entire West Bank "because the long-term costs would outweigh any short-term gains in sovereignty or security. "
Malkah Fleisher, an influencer and settler, took the opposite view.
The co-founder of B'yadaim Shelanu, a women's security initiative in Judea and Samaria, said failing to enact sovereignty has "only earned international contempt and local Arab derision. We have gained nothing from the lie of a two-state solution and from giving land away to a foreign entity."
According to Perry, annexation would force Israel to choose between two difficult paths: denying Palestinians citizenship and becoming an apartheid state or granting them equal rights and risking the country's Jewish majority and national identity.
Today, nearly three million Palestinians live in Judea and Samaria, primarily in Areas A and B, which are under Palestinian Authority control. In the same region, approximately 465,000 Jews reside in Area C. Inside Israel's pre-1967 borders, known as inside the "Green Line," including Jerusalem, there are 7.2 million Jews and two million Arabs.
Perry argued that neither scenario is sustainable for Israel. However, if annexation moves forward, he believes Israel would likely sacrifice its democratic character.
"It would create a system where two populations live under one authority but with vastly different rights," he said. The result, he warned, "would erode Israel's moral standing, risk a major outbreak of violence, and gradually invite global pariah status, which would crush Israel's export-driven economy."
But Fleisher disagrees. She told ILTV that it should be clear to everyone that the Oslo doctrine has been a "colossal failure."
"The areas that have been given over to the control of the Palestinian Authority have become jihadist and Judenrein," Fleisher said. "October 7 is all the proof any logical Israeli should need that when Israel loses control over parts of its land and allows jihadists to take over; it is a recipe for attacks against us."
She argued that the IDF has repeatedly emphasized the need to prepare for another large-scale attack originating from Judea and Samaria.
"With huge Hamas strongholds like Hebron being left to their own devices to strengthen and reinforce terrorist ideology, including its cynical brainwashing of its children, we are leaving ourselves vulnerable to an attack at any time," Fleisher contended. "Israel taking control of these areas, forcing out terrorist hegemony, ripping out jihadist educational curriculum, and expelling anti-Israel elements, we are providing security that has eluded Israel throughout its history."
Watch previous issues of ILTV Insider:
Fleisher also emphasized Judea and Samaria's deep historical and religious significance to the Jewish people. She noted that many key landmarks—such as the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem, and the site of the first Tabernacle in Shiloh—are located there. In her view, the real question is not whether Israel should enact sovereignty but what the status of non-Jews would be in the newly annexed territory.
"The question is not whether Israel should govern [this territory], but what the status is of other peoples living in our land," Fleisher said. "We cannot allow the difficulty of this question to undermine the truth and the rationality of the Jewish people holding on to its land."
Perry, however, argued that if Trump does greenlight some form of annexation, Israel's far-right leaders would likely choose to annex Area C—where most Jewish communities are already located—rather than the entire West Bank. While this would leave disconnected Palestinian enclaves under Palestinian Authority control, he said it would carry fewer risks than full annexation.
Fleisher rejected that idea as well. She said that being "generous" by "[our] willingness to gift [the land] to a terror state as a way of seeming moderate and praiseworthy in the eyes of the international community, in reality, [has] only earned international contempt and local Arab derision."
She added, "We have gained nothing from the lie of a two-state solution and from giving land away to a foreign entity."
On the other hand, Perry warned that fully annexing the West Bank would be disastrous for Israel's diplomatic relations, economic stability, and security.
"Such a move would mark a dramatic departure from decades of international consensus supporting a two-state solution," he told ILTV. "Europe, Israel's largest trading partner, could impose severe economic sanctions, undermining Israel's prosperity. Diplomatic isolation would be swift, with countries worldwide condemning the annexation as a violation of international law."
He added that the decision would also threaten Israel's security ties with neighboring countries.
"It would also risk diplomatic and security ties with neighboring countries like Jordan and Egypt and end the prospects for wider peace in the region," Perry continued. "Both nations would face domestic pressure to sever peace agreements with Israel, potentially destabilizing regional security—and it would end prospects for wider peace."
Moreover, he argued that such a move would make Israel a partisan issue in the United States, alienating young liberal Americans, including many American Jews. He said Israel's challenge is not choosing between democracy and Judaism but balancing both.
"Israel should never be tempted to think that theocracy or suicidal ultranationalist fantasies are somehow more Jewish," he said.
Fleisher balked at this idea. Instead, she told ILTV that the world is shifting "back to healthy nationalism and common sense," and many countries are looking to Israel for courage, strength, and honesty.
"The American president and administration and the American people are strongly behind us, maybe more vociferously than ever before, as they too fight to rectify the takeover of broken progressive ideas and practices that have been leading their country down the wrong path," Fleisher said. "India, Argentina, Hungary, Poland, and more have shown interest in and solidarity with a strong Israel – not to mention Saudi Arabia."
According to Fleisher, when Israel stands firm in its beliefs, it earns respect. But when it succumbs to international pressure, its weakness becomes a tool for its enemies. She argued that the Trump administration has taken a "stronger and prouder" nationalist stance on Israel than Israel itself has and that Israel's democratic values should not be mistaken for being identical to those of the United States.
"Israel is first and foremost a nation-state and a defensive one at that," Fleisher said. "Democracy is a value, but it is not above Judaism or the Jewish people. It has in it beautiful principles that Israel cares about, but it was meant to be a system that helped Israel enhance and actualize itself, not destroy itself."
Perry strongly disagreed.
"Israel was founded as both a Jewish and democratic state, and ultimately, its long-term security and prosperity depend on remaining both," he argued. "Annexation threatens this delicate balance because it would wipe out the Jews' demographic majority. That, then, is the irony: annexation, while motivated by religious Jewish fanaticism, does not make the country more but less Jewish in any way that is rooted in actual life in the real world."