Trump's signals on accepting Israel's West Bank annexation ignite backlash

Uncertainty continues to surround President Donald Trump’s plan for Gaza, as new political and diplomatic signals in Washington raise concerns that the administration may be moving toward acceptance of Israeli annexation of large areas of the occupied West Bank.

In recent days, developments across Congress, Christian Zionist circles and diplomatic channels have converged around what analysts suggest is an effort to entrench existing realities on the ground.

Critics say this could become the basis for future political arrangements, or serve to block legitimate avenues for altering the status quo in both Gaza and the West Bank.

On Wednesday, the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Middle East subcommittee held a hearing titled "Understanding Judea and Samaria from the historical, strategic and political dynamics in US–Israeli relations".

The title itself, chosen by the committee chair, Republican Congressman Mike Lawler, reflected a stance aligned with the terminology used by the government of Benjamin Netanyahu.

Republicans broadly, joined by many Democrats, use the term “Judea and Samaria”, adopting the Israeli government’s naming of the occupied territory. During the hearing, the article notes that “features of duplicity” appeared in the US administration’s position on the dangers of annexation.

Lawler said that when Trump stated he would not allow the annexation of the West Bank or any part of it, "he meant that he opposes the annexation of lands that are not under Israeli control".

Lawler added that "it is important to look at the geographic map of the place which shows that 60 percent of the West Bank is under Israeli control". He argued that Trump’s prohibition therefore does not apply to this area, saying its annexation "is permitted".

The article notes that the White House has not issued any denial or correction of Lawler’s remarks, which he delivered in what was described as a tone of "confirmation" about the president’s intent. If accurate, the report suggests annexing the 60 percent may be a matter of timing while Israeli and US conditions mature.

These comments come amid increasingly open expressions of discomfort inside the United States about what is described as the political and financial burden of the close relationship with Israel.

This sentiment is no longer confined to traditional Republican figures such as Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon.

It now includes foreign-policy professionals such as Andrew Miller, a former National Security Council official and former deputy assistant secretary of state for Israeli-Palestinian affairs, who recently called for ending the "Israeli exception" in Washington’s relationship with Israel in a detailed article in Foreign Affairs.

The report describes a broader emerging current labelled "Enough", spanning media figures such as Carlson, academics such as Jeffrey Sachs, and lawmakers including Senators Bernie Sanders and Chris Van Hollen.

All have called for halting what they describe as unlimited US military, financial and diplomatic support, particularly after Israel’s actions in the Gaza war.

Polling has also shown an erosion of support for Israel among younger Republicans, a trend that the report says has alarmed Israeli officials. In response, Israel’s foreign ministry recently hosted 1,000 American Christian Zionist clergy for a week-long visit, effectively a mobilisation effort targeted at US public opinion.