Trump draws a red line: The deep strategic considerations behind opposing Israel's annexation of the West Bank.

On February 9, 2026, the Israeli Security Cabinet approved a series of measures to expand control over the West Bank, including allowing Israeli citizens to directly purchase land in the West Bank and extending Israeli administrative jurisdiction to certain areas under the Palestinian Authority. The following day, a senior White House official reiterated via Reuters that U.S. President Donald Trump opposes Israel's annexation of the West Bank. The unnamed official emphasized that a stable West Bank ensures Israel's security and aligns with this administration's goal of achieving peace in the region. This statement was issued two days before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's planned visit to the United States to meet with Trump, a delicate timing that directly responds to unilateral actions that could undermine the Oslo Accords framework and completely close off the prospect of a two-state solution.

The specific content of the Israeli cabinet resolution and its legal impact.

Five members of Israel's Security Cabinet, including Defense Minister Israel Katz and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, approved several specific measures on February 9. The core of these measures is to systematically alter the legal and administrative reality in the West Bank, paving the way for de facto annexation. According to the cabinet resolution, Israel will repeal a law originating from the Jordanian rule period (pre-1967) that classified land registration information as confidential. The new regulations will make land registration public and eliminate the requirement to obtain permits from the Israeli Civil Administration, thereby significantly reducing the difficulty for Israeli citizens to purchase land in Area C (which, under the Oslo Accords, is under full Israeli control and constitutes over 60% of the West Bank's area).

A more symbolic and practically impactful measure involves the transfer of authority. Israel will reclaim the approval power for construction permits in Jewish settlements in the city of Hebron from the Palestinian Authority, transferring it to Israeli authorities. Hebron, the largest Palestinian city in the West Bank, home to over 200,000 Palestinians and approximately 1,000 extremist Jewish settlers, has consistently been one of the most intense flashpoints of conflict. Additionally, Israel will strengthen its control over two significant religious sites in the southern West Bank—Rachel's Tomb near Bethlehem and the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron. Smotrich explicitly stated that these changes aim to deepen our roots in all areas of the Land of Israel and bury the idea of a Palestinian state. Currently, more than 500,000 Israelis reside in settlements and outposts in the West Bank, which are widely regarded as illegal by the international community.

The Duality of Trump's Statements and the Inertia of U.S. Policy

The White House's statement was carefully worded, reflecting the Trump administration's consistent contradictory stance on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The statement clearly opposes annexation, drawing a distinct red line. However, it did not directly condemn the specific measures passed by Israel's security cabinet, despite widespread criticism that these measures are intended to create a fait accompli for annexation. This approach of opposing the goal while refraining from excessive criticism of the path aligns with the practices during Trump's tenure. In 2019, the Trump administration's "Deal of the Century," while recognizing Israel's sovereignty over the Jordan Valley and settlements, did not formally endorse the one-time annexation of large areas of the West Bank, leaving it for negotiations.

The deeper reason lies in the calculation of U.S. strategic interests. White House officials emphasize that a stable West Bank aligns with America's goal of achieving regional peace, which reflects Washington's considerations for a broader Middle East strategic layout. From the later stages of the Trump administration to the present, the United States has been committed to promoting the normalization of relations between Israel and Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has clearly stated that any annexation actions would severely harm the normalization process. On February 10, the foreign ministries of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Qatar, Egypt, Turkey, and other countries issued a rare joint condemnation statement, calling Israel's decision the strongest illegal measure. If the United States turns a blind eye to Israel's radical moves, it will directly impact its meticulously constructed Abraham Accords alliance system aimed at isolating Iran. Therefore, Trump's opposition serves both as a restraint on the far-right factions within Netanyahu's coalition and as reassurance to key regional partners like Saudi Arabia.

International Reactions and the Realistic Dilemma of the Two-State Solution

Israel's actions have triggered the most intense wave of international criticism since early 2026. The UK Foreign Office issued a statement on the evening of February 9, strongly condemning Israel's decision, stating that any unilateral attempts to alter Palestine's geography or demographic structure are completely unacceptable, and demanding that Israel revoke it immediately. UN Secretary-General Guterres expressed serious concern through a spokesperson, warning that these measures are eroding the prospects of a two-state solution. Citing the International Court of Justice's opinion on the illegality of Israel's occupation, he stated that such actions are destabilizing.

However, these condemnations face a sense of powerlessness in reality. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas condemned from his office in Ramallah that this is an attempt to deepen the annexation of the occupied West Bank, but the Palestinian side lacks effective counter-leverage. The more critical issue is that Israel's actions are accelerating the erosion of the material foundation for the two-state solution. By legalizing land transactions and expanding administrative control, Israel is further fragmenting the already divided Palestinian territories, making it increasingly physically impossible to establish a territorially contiguous and sovereign Palestinian state in the future. This is not merely a policy shift but a paradigm change: transitioning from temporary occupation management to permanent sovereign integration.

Netanyahu's Political Gamble and Regional Risks

For Netanyahu, this security cabinet resolution is a carefully calculated political gamble. The coalition government he leads relies on the support of far-right parties such as Smotrich's Religious Zionist Party. The core political demand of these parties is the formal annexation of the West Bank. Approving these measures serves as an advance payment Netanyahu makes to his domestic political allies to maintain government stability. At the same time, he is also testing the limits of the U.S. Trump administration—gauging where Washington's tolerance lies between verbal opposition and tacit approval.

The stakes of this gamble are extremely high. In the short term, it could escalate violent conflicts in the West Bank. Palestinian armed factions, such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, might use this as a pretext to launch attacks in the West Bank or from the Gaza Strip. In the long run, it could completely derail the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, pushing the conflict into a permanent, low-intensity apartheid-style management situation, which poses profound challenges to Israel's democratic nature and international standing. Furthermore, it severely damages relations with Jordan, a frontline Arab state with a large Palestinian population, where the royal regime is highly sensitive to developments in the West Bank.

The White House's statement on February 10 can be seen as a clear response to Netanyahu's probing: the red line of annexation is non-negotiable, but the United States will not openly break with Israel over this issue. Whether this delicate balance can be maintained depends on whether Netanyahu will hit the brakes after his meeting with Trump or continue to leverage bureaucratic procedures and incremental changes, inching closer to that red line. The stability of the West Bank, as the White House stated, indeed concerns Israel's security. However, at this moment, the greatest source of instability stems precisely from the decisions made at the cabinet meeting table in Jerusalem. The geopolitical scales are tilting, yet those at the helm seem to believe they can steady the ship at the last moment.