‘We Are Offering an End of Conflict’: Israeli Leaders Push for Sovereignty in the West Bank
Israeli politicians, settler leaders, and Christian advocates are calling for full sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, while critics warn of long-term political and economic consequences
US President Donald Trump is overdue on his long-anticipated announcement regarding whether Israel should assert sovereignty or annex Jewish communities in the West Bank—an area referred to as Judea and Samaria by many evangelical Christians and religious Zionists.
More than four weeks ago, at a press conference alongside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the US president responded to a reporter’s question by stating that his administration would reveal its policy “in about four weeks.” That timeline has now passed, yet sources within his inner circle, speaking with The Media Line, suggest that the president will likely support the move.
President Trump’s “deal of the century” peace plan already endorsed the annexation of up to 40% of Area C into Israel. Additionally, last month, he commented that Israel is “a very small piece of land,” implying concerns over its territorial limitations when asked about annexation in the West Bank.
As anticipation builds, all eyes are on the White House for what could be a pivotal shift in US policy toward the region.
In Israel, a significant number of legislators support the move.
Last month, Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana endorsed calls for Jerusalem to extend its sovereignty over the West Bank, arguing that full control over the territory was the “one and only way” to achieve peace in the region.
“These biblical, original parts of our land, which in the Bible tells the story of our people, are intended for us, for the people of Israel, need to be in the territory of the State of Israel, under the ownership of Israel, under full Israeli sovereignty,” Ohana said.
Previously, MK Dan Illouz told The Media Line on the sidelines of the B’Sheva Jerusalem Conference that handing over any part of the West Bank to the Palestinians would be “suicidal,” warning that it could become a terror stronghold, much like Gaza before October 7.
Several legislative proposals, including by Illouz, have already been introduced, either advocating for Israeli sovereignty or, at the very least, aiming to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state in these areas.
Beyond Israel’s political sphere, Christian leaders who played a key role in Donald Trump’s reelection are also pushing for sovereignty.
Last week, a delegation of Christian leaders visited Israel to launch the Conference of Presidents (COP) of Christian Organizations in Support of Israel. Among their top policy priorities is backing Judea and Samaria, which Ralph Reed, founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, described as Israel’s own “Bible Belt.”
“Bible-believing Christians believe with Bible-believing Jews that this is the biblical heartland,” Trey Graham, senior pastor at First Melissa Church in Texas, told The Media Line. “It is the land of the Bible—Abraham, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Jesus—all of them, and therefore is and should be part of Israel, and that is God’s covenant given to Abraham, repeated generation to generation. There is no biblical debate that this is the biblical heartland and should be a part of Israel. God said so.”
However, Graham acknowledged challenges could lie in the legal, political, and diplomatic realms.
Many settler leaders are not interested in discussing the challenges of sovereignty, including Yishai Fleisher, international spokesperson for the Jewish city of Hebron. He reminded The Media Line that when the US announced it would move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, dozens of world leaders called the president and warned that he could be starting World War III. Instead, the move was met largely with silence, and a handful of other countries have since followed suit.
We are offering an end of conflict. … We are offering Arabs a decent life.
“We are offering an end of conflict” with sovereignty, Fleisher said. “We are offering Arabs a decent life. We live in a Trumpian era. Israel has to match the speed Trump is offering.”
President Trump’s peace plan, which he touted during his first term, was rejected by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas before the signing of the Abraham Accords. As a result, that plan is likely no longer on the table, said Harel Chorev-Halewa, a research fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University.
So, what options remain? Graham said no one fully knows.
He explained that while the US president’s leadership speaks in “big picture terms,” thousands of details must be worked out if and when the president makes such a major announcement.
“No plan has been released to the public, so we do not know where it would apply,” Graham said.
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
The West Bank is divided into three areas under the Oslo Accords. Area A is under full Palestinian control. Area B is under Palestinian civil administration with Israeli security control. Area C is under full Israeli control.
Fleisher and other settler leaders advocate for extending Israeli sovereignty over all three areas. Under this scenario, the Palestinian Authority would be dismantled, and Israel would assume governance. However, instead of granting Israeli citizenship to the 3 million Palestinians living there, they would become residents. They would receive full Israeli services and be allowed to vote in local elections but would be barred from voting in national elections. Fleisher said this measure is intended to preserve Israel’s Jewish demographic majority.
Fleisher also argued that Israel should first eliminate jihadist influences in the region by outlawing extremism, similar to laws in the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. Security checks would ensure that only those who do not support jihadism could remain, while others would be encouraged to relocate.
“We would create a program to assist them in undergoing voluntary resettlement,” Fleisher elaborated. “This is not an evil idea. People who want to be pro-Israel residents of the State of Israel will stay.”
Fleisher’s proposal is similar to one that former US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman advocated in his book One Jewish State: The Last, Best Hope to Resolve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.
However, Graham pointed out a critical issue: refusing to grant automatic citizenship to Palestinians raises governance challenges.
“If you automatically refuse to give these Palestinians citizenship, it means you are governing a major segment of your total population that are not citizens. So, you have to answer, what legal rights do they have?”
Another option would be for Israel to annex only Area C, which is already under its administration.
“I don’t think Israel will annex the entire thing even if Trump ‘allows’ it,” said Dan Perry, former Middle East bureau chief for the Associated Press and a resident of Israel. The challenge, he explained, is that this would create a fragmented West Bank with disconnected Palestinian-controlled enclaves governed by the Palestinian Authority.
“This too would carry risks,” Perry said, “but lesser ones.”
Such a move would also mean Israel relinquishing key historically Jewish sites, such as Bethlehem, where Rachel’s Tomb is located; Hebron, home to the Cave of the Patriarchs; and Shechem (Nablus), the site of Joseph’s Tomb. If Israel ceded even security control over these areas, Jews could lose access to them entirely—similar to the years when they were unable to visit the Temple Mount, which remains under the authority of the Jordanian Waqf.
Fleisher agreed with Perry on one key point: the Israeli government is not ready to make such a move, largely because the Israeli public is not ready.
Although close to 500,000 Jews live in the West Bank, a 2023 survey published by the Hebrew newspaper Israel Hayom and the Israel Defense and Security Forum found that 80% of Israelis believe it is dangerous to travel on roads in the area.
Furthermore, only 9% of respondents reported visiting the region weekly between 2020 and 2023. Meanwhile, 20% of respondents had never visited the West Bank during that period.
On the other hand, the survey found that 70% of the Jewish public feels a historical connection to Judea and Samaria, 63% feel an emotional connection, and 48% feel a religious connection. The poll also surveyed Arab Israelis and found that just over one-third (37%) felt the same historical connection.
Fleisher said he wished more Israelis would recognize the “common sense” of sovereignty and support it. Perry, however, argued that the long-term costs of such a move would outweigh any short-term gains in sovereignty or security.
Annexation would force Israel to make an impossible choice: Either deny Palestinians citizenship, becoming an apartheid state, or grant them equal rights, badly undermining its Jewish majority
“Annexation would force Israel to make an impossible choice: Either deny Palestinians citizenship, becoming an apartheid state, or grant them equal rights, badly undermining its Jewish majority and national identity—and losing it altogether if Gaza were thrown in,” Perry explained. “Neither option is sustainable, but likely it would choose the former, ending its democratic character. Creating a system where two populations live under one authority but with vastly different rights 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.”
Perry warned that Europe, Israel’s largest trading partner, could impose severe economic sanctions, undermining Israel’s prosperity. He added that many countries would likely condemn Israel for violating international law. Additionally, it could jeopardize the peace and normalization agreements Israel has already secured with Jordan, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Bahrain, and Sudan.
Jeremy Issacharoff, former Israeli ambassador to Germany and a Jerusalem resident, echoed those concerns. He argued that annexation would also jeopardize any possibility of a political solution with the Palestinians—one of Hamas’s primary goals in launching the October 7 attack.
“Hamas did not go to war just to kill Israelis, but to undermine the PA,” Issacharoff said. “They wanted to destroy any possibility of Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation at any time. If there is no Palestinian-Israeli solution, then Hamas gets what it wants.”
A Fatah spokesman confirmed Issacharoff’s sentiments in an interview with Fox News Digital: “Annexing the West Bank will set us back to 1948 and destroy any future stability or prospects for peace,” he said.
Perry further warned that annexation could polarize Israel’s vital support in the United States.
“It would become a partisan issue, alienating liberal and younger American Jews who overwhelmingly back a two-state solution and jeopardizing bipartisan backing that Israel has long relied on,” he said.
From a practical standpoint, Perry added, it would also erase Israel’s Jewish demographic majority.
“Annexation, while motivated by religious Jewish fanaticism, does not make the country more but less Jewish,” Perry said.
A bigger question remains: Why is Israel waiting for the president of the United States to recommend—or even dictate—its policy in the West Bank? If Israel wanted to annex the land it won in the 1967 Six-Day War, it could do so. If not, then it shouldn’t, some analysts argue.
Issacharoff pointed out that just as President Trump appears to be driving policy on the hostage-for-ceasefire negotiations, it now seems as though he could decide Israel’s approach to sovereignty in the territories.
“The prime minister is not deciding on critical issues pertaining to Israeli national security,” Issacharoff said. “I am not sure the president of the United States understands the implications of sovereignty.”
Graham expressed similar sentiments. Although he is an evangelical Christian who believes the land belongs to Israel, he said it would be a mistake to view President Trump as “an expert in Israeli diplomacy, policy, and laws.”
“He cannot make those decisions, and American governments should not make those decisions,” Graham said.
The American government should say we support that this is the biblical heartland given to Israel by God. … But if and how you implement that is very complicated and cannot and should not be decided on by Mr. Trump.
“The American government should say we support that this is the biblical heartland given to Israel by God, and we believe you have the right to control it,” he continued. “But if and how you implement that is very complicated and cannot and should not be decided on by Mr. Trump or any American official.”
