Netanyahu Vows to Annex West Bank Settlements if Re-elected

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledged Saturday to annex Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank if re-elected, a dramatic campaign promise that would effectively end any remaining hopes for a two-state solution.

The Pledge

In television interviews three days before elections, Netanyahu declared: “I will apply Israeli sovereignty over every settlement, and that area will be part of the State of Israel.”

Key commitments:

All settlements to be annexed
No settler evacuated
Coordination with Trump administration
Action shortly after election
Part of broader sovereignty plan

Political Context

Election Pressure:

Polls showing tight race with Gantz
Right-wing base mobilization needed
Settler vote crucial
Competing with further-right parties
Corruption charges looming

Trump Factor:

Peace plan expected soon
Assumed to be pro-Israel
Netanyahu claiming credit
US green light implied
Historic opportunity cited

What Annexation Means

Immediate Impact:

650,000+ settlers become sovereign Israelis
Palestinian territories carved up
Contiguous Palestinian state impossible
International law violated
One-state reality created

Areas Affected:

140+ official settlements
Dozens of outposts
Jordan Valley possibility
30% of West Bank minimum
Strategic highlands included

Palestinian Reaction

Official Response:

Saeb Erekat: “Netanyahu is the chief destroyer of the peace process. This ends the two-state solution.”

Abbas spokesperson: “Such statements show Israel was never a partner for peace.”

Strategic Implications:

Two-state solution dead
One-state struggle begins
International focus shift
Rights-based approach
Apartheid accusations

International Alarm

UN Statement:

“Any Israeli decision to impose its laws on occupied territory would be devastating to peace.”

EU Warning:

“Annexation would have serious consequences for EU-Israel relations.”

Arab States:

Saudi Arabia and UAE expressed concern but focused on Iran threat.

Legal Ramifications

Geneva Convention: Clear violation
UN Resolutions: Decades of precedent broken
ICC Jurisdiction: War crimes investigation likely
Sanctions Risk: EU action possible
Legitimacy Crisis: Israel’s democracy questioned

US Position Unclear

Trump Signals:

Golan Heights recognized
Settlements not called illegal
Peace plan delayed
“Deal of Century” promised
But annexation not endorsed

State Department:

Refused to comment on Netanyahu’s statements, referring to upcoming peace plan.

Israeli Political Spectrum

Right-Wing:

Enthusiastic support
“Historic justice”
Security necessity
Divine promise
Electoral winner

Center-Left:

Gantz avoided direct response
Focus on Netanyahu corruption
Two-state lip service
Security emphasis
Pragmatic ambiguity

Arab Parties:

“Apartheid declaration”
Called for resistance
International intervention sought
Boycott threatened

Settlement Movement Triumphant

Settler leaders celebrated: “After 52 years, normalizing our presence in our biblical homeland.”

Expectations:

Building restrictions lifted
Investment flowing
Population boom
Biblical claims realized
Victory complete

One-State Reality

Demographics:

7 million Jews
7 million Palestinians (including Gaza)
Equal populations
Unequal rights
Unsustainable system

Options Narrowing:

Apartheid: Different rights by ethnicity
Ethnic cleansing: Forced displacement
Democracy: One person, one vote
Confederation: Creative solutions
Conflict: Perpetual violence

Regional Implications

Jordan stability threatened
Saudi normalization complicated
Iran propaganda gift
Turkey-Israel tensions rise
US credibility damaged

Analysis: Rubicon Crossed

Netanyahu’s annexation pledge represents:

Strategic Shift:

From managing conflict to imposing solution
From ambiguity to clarity
From process to outcome
From negotiation to unilateralism

Historical Moment:

Two-state paradigm ending
International system challenged
New struggle beginning
Consequences unpredictable

Whether electoral ploy or serious intention, Netanyahu has crossed a line that cannot be uncrossed, accelerating the conflict’s transformation from territorial dispute to existential struggle over the nature of the state between the river and the sea.