Leaders throughout history have often attempted to reframe their failures as successes. The political strategies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President-elect Donald Trump are set to add a new chapter to this narrative. If Trump secures reelection, the Middle East may soon witness a remarkably cynical arrangement: ending the war in Gaza in exchange for Israel’s annexation of portions of the West Bank.
For Netanyahu, this scenario would represent an act of narrative control. It would enable him to assert that he not only defeated Hamas but also redrew the map of the region. Simultaneously, it would divert attention from the severe security failures experienced on October 7, 2023. For Trump, this deal would be a theatrical coup, allowing him to orchestrate a grand agreement early in his second term, project strength to his supporters, and solidify his reputation as a “master negotiator.”
Trump eyes a dramatic Middle East deal to boost his “master negotiator” image.
Both figures embody a long-standing tradition of transactional politics, where immediate appearances are prioritized over sustainable solutions. Trump’s 2018 summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, which was heralded as a potential breakthrough for global peace but ultimately became a mere spectacle that elevated a despotic ruler, illustrates how leaders can exploit crises for self-serving narratives.
Netanyahu has consistently played a similar game, presenting West Bank settlement expansions as retaliatory measures against Palestinian aggression while using military actions to enhance his image as Israel’s foremost protector.
The prospect of trading Gaza for annexation in the West Bank fits perfectly into this pattern, allowing Netanyahu to portray the war’s conclusion not as a concession but as the realization of his promise for “total victory.”
The repercussions of October 7 weigh heavily on Netanyahu’s political strategies. The Hamas attack revealed not only critical intelligence failures but also the collapse of the so-called “Netanyahu doctrine,” which maintained that Israeli deterrence could shield the nation from existential threats. The political fallout has been severe, with public trust in his leadership plummeting to unprecedented lows.
By framing the end of the Gaza conflict as a victory, Netanyahu could shift blame and redirect focus. Linking the war’s conclusion to a historic act of annexation might enable him to recast the narrative of his leadership, framing October 7 as a precursor to a decisive transformation of Israel’s borders.
Internal political pressures would likely drive this approach more than any geopolitical strategy. Netanyahu’s coalition relies on support from far-right figures Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir, who view the Gaza conflict as a critical struggle that must continue until a resolution is achieved, resisting any suggestions of a ceasefire.
However, even they have their own agendas. For Smotrich and Ben Gvir, West Bank annexation symbolizes the pinnacle of their political aspirations. By presenting annexation as the ultimate nationalist victory, Netanyahu could unify his coalition under a shared achievement while avoiding the pitfalls of a protracted conflict in Gaza.
While calls for resettling Gaza have gained attention, the actual rebuilding of settlements there would encounter international and logistical hurdles, making it an unlikely scenario. Nevertheless, these discussions may serve another purpose: intensifying pressure on Trump to accept annexation as a counterbalance.
By framing the idea of Gaza resettlement as a potential solution, Netanyahu’s government could be maneuvering for a situation where international rejection of resettlement allows Israel to maintain military control over northern Gaza and the capacity to reenter southern Gaza at will.
The prospect of resettling Gaza faces immense challenges, hinting at deeper political maneuvers at play
This “practical compromise” could evade the issue of resettlement while securing “strategic gains” that facilitate West Bank annexation. For Trump, this arrangement presents compelling optics. Supporting such a deal would position him as the architect of a realignment in the Middle East, ostensibly bringing “peace” to Gaza while advocating for Israel’s claims in the West Bank.
His evangelical supporters would interpret annexation as the fulfillment of biblical prophecies, while far-right constituents would celebrate it as a definitive rejection of a two-state solution and a full endorsement of Israel.
The groundwork for this agreement is already being laid. Netanyahu’s selection of Yechiel Leiter as Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., along with Trump’s nomination of Mike Huckabee as U.S. ambassador to Israel, indicates a shared set of interests.
Leiter, a committed advocate for annexation and a Netanyahu loyalist, has a history of promoting ambitious visions of Israeli sovereignty. Huckabee, a longtime Trump ally and supporter of the settler movement, lends a powerful voice for annexation within U.S.-Israel relations. Together, they create a diplomatic echo chamber that reinforces the narratives supporting this deal.
However, the implications of this cynical bargain could be profound. Although the cessation of hostilities in Gaza is urgently needed, the annexation of the West Bank could lead to unrest and increased violence. This action would deepen societal divisions within Israel, further isolate the nation on the international stage, and extinguish any lingering hopes for a two-state solution.
For Palestinians, it would mark yet another chapter in a long history of dispossession and marginalization, as their futures are bartered away for the political survival of leaders who view them as mere pawns.
While such a deal might temporarily secure Netanyahu’s political future and enhance Trump’s image as a negotiator, it would starkly highlight the reality that, in a world driven by cynical politics, it is invariably the people who pay the highest price.
Raoul Wootliff heads strategic communications at Number 10 Strategies, an international strategic, research, and communications consultancy. Previously a journalist, he served as the political correspondent for the Times of Israel and hosted its Daily Briefing podcast.
