Israeli sources told a veteran reporter that Washington is prepared to stand aside if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu orders annexation in parts of the West Bank. Axios correspondent Barak Ravid relayed the private signals, noting that a top U.S. official conveyed no opposition in closed-door talks.
“Rubio has signaled to Israeli officials in private meetings that he does not oppose Israel’s West Bank annexations and that the Trump administration will not stand in the way,” writes Ravid.
Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has openly called to annex over 80 percent of the territory. For years, many in Israel’s right have argued that formal sovereignty is overdue, pointing to unrelenting terrorism and failed “peace process” promises that never delivered real security.
The stakes are enormous. Annexation on a large scale would be a decisive blow to the old two-state playbook. It would also test the new regional architecture that grew from historic Arab-Israeli normalization. The United Arab Emirates has already signaled a “red line,” and other signatories could rethink ties.
At the same time, Jerusalem is pressing a renewed ground push aimed at stamping out Hamas command nodes. Critics at home and abroad complain about the pace and tactics. The White House has not issued warnings about the fresh operation but has kept focus on the hostages Hamas continues to hold.
President Donald Trump put it bluntly on Truth Social: “Tell Hamas to IMMEDIATELY give back all 20 Hostages (Not 2 or 5 or 7!), and things will change rapidly. IT WILL END!”
That line is the core of his view: end the hostage saga and end the war. It also reflects a broader Trump posture—support your allies, punish terrorists, and don’t hamstring battlefield partners with empty lectures. Israel says the war ends only when Hamas can never again rule or rearm.
Axios framed the moment this way: “Israel is considering annexing large portions of the West Bank later this month in response to the recognition of a Palestinian state by several western countries. President Trump is likely the only foreign player who could stop it.”
That is true in a narrow sense. America alone wields the kind of leverage—funding, weapons, and diplomatic cover—that can alter Israeli decisions. But this White House is signaling that deterrence and alliance reliability come first. Rather than threaten Israel mid-war, the president is telling Hamas to give up its human leverage and face the consequences.
Expect fury from the same corners that opposed the Abraham Accords and downplayed the terror threat. They will say annexation kills the peace process. In reality, the peace process has been on life support for years because terrorists and their sponsors kept lighting it on fire. Strength, not wishful thinking, is what finally produced Arab-Israeli breakthroughs—and it’s what keeps American credibility intact.
There are real risks. Some Arab capitals may publicly object. Europe may posture. But the map of the Middle East has already shifted. Partners respect a United States that means what it says and backs friends who fight shared enemies. That’s been the Trump record: maximum pressure on terrorists and the states that arm them, coupled with unprecedented Arab-Israeli deals that the foreign-policy class said were impossible.
Meanwhile, pro-Israel voices note that sovereignty moves would settle longstanding legal gray zones, curtail lawless terror havens, and reduce strategic ambiguity that invites attacks. Opponents counter that the Palestinian Authority could collapse under the strain. Even then, one fact remains: Hamas holds innocent people, fires rockets, and vows genocide. No responsible president tells an ally to stop until that threat is finished.
This moment is a test of will. Israel is moving to end a terror empire on its border. The White House is telling Hamas to release the hostages and signaling it won’t undercut a core ally in wartime. That is how deterrence is rebuilt—and how America leads.