What could an Israeli annexation of the West Bank look like?

The rock has been hurled into the lake and now the ripples are spreading.

The UK and several other Western countries recognising a Palestinian state was never likely to be an action without consequences.

So what happens next? Well, firstly, a surge of angry rhetoric from across the Israeli political spectrum, almost all of whom described this as a victory for Hamas.

Gaza latest: Countries boycott French two-state solution summit

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called it “an absurd prize for terrorism” while Yair Lapid, leader of the opposition, described recognition as “a bad move and a reward for terror”.

Benny Gantz said it “emboldens Hamas and extends the war”, and Naftali Bennett, the man who may well usurp Netanyahu as prime minister next year, said recognition could lead to a “full-blown terror state”. The forum that represents the families of hostages called it “a catastrophic failure”.

Next step, annexation

So that’s unity in condemnation. But words are one thing; actions are another. And the more extreme ministers in Netanyahu’s cabinet, who carry great weight, are coalescing around a single rallying cry – the demand is the annexation of the West Bank.

It sounds blunt, but it is incredibly complicated. For one thing, simply defining what is meant by “annexation” is near-on impossible.

The West Bank, which a growing number of Israelis refer to by its biblical name of Judea and Samaria, has been subject to Israeli military occupation since 1967.

In a sense, it is already partly annexed – the West Bank is dotted with settlements and outposts that are home to hundreds of thousands of Israelis. So annexation could mean supporting and expanding those developments.

Or annexation could mean sending in more soldiers, more equipment and taking more land, potentially in the Jordan valley.

It could mean pumping resources into the controversial and internationally criticised E1 programme, which would divide the West Bank in half.

But it could even mean the very thing that you probably think of when you hear the word “annexation”. It could mean Israel flooding the area with soldiers and claiming the land for itself – an invasion, in other words.

It might sound appealing to the likes of Israeli far-right politicians Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir. At the same time, it would infuriate Arab nations, who are already seething that Israel chose to launch an airstrike on a building in Qatar to try, seemingly unsuccessfully, to kill Hamas leaders.

A loyalty test for the US

Full annexation would test the loyalty of the United States, which has, so far, supported Netanyahu through thick and thin. The attack on Doha has already prompted a mild rebuke; Israel’s government will not want to risk losing the backing of its most important diplomatic ally.

President Trump is due to meet Arab leaders on Tuesday, who will tell him of their fears for the future of the West Bank.

This will not be easy for Netanyahu. He has to balance the need to retain Trump’s friendship and support with a desire to dissuade other nations from recognising the State of Palestine, along with the need to keep Arab neighbours from turning against him while keeping Smotrich and Ben-Gvir in his cabinet.

So Netanyahu is going to bide his time. He will not make a decision on next steps until he has returned from visiting both the United Nations and the White House. The immediate future of the West Bank might well be decided on a flight back from America.