Contest
CIS, jointly with like-minded organizations, petitioned Israel’s Supreme Court against recent government decisions, which constitute West Bank annexation in all but name. This memo represents an English translation of the security annex to the petition.
A few years ago, CIS members – all former senior officials across Israel’s security and foreign policy establishments – devoted more than a year to examine the implications of annexation moves for Israel’s security. That comprehensive study* identified grave risks on several levels. We hereby emphasize three: local, regional, and international.
Whereas there is no certainty that all risks would materialize, it is our professional judgment that the likelihood is far too high to be overlooked.
It is therefore essential to ensure that the government’s de facto annexation decisions are not implemented before two conditions are met:
- The government confirms that it has considered these risks and identified reasonable responses to each.
- The risks to national security and to the personal safety of every Israeli are presented to the public for it to express itself on whether annexation is worth pursuing and the associated risks are worth taking.
Associated Risks on the Local Level
The government measures threaten to bring about the collapse of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the radicalization of the Palestinian population, thereby compelling Israel to take over the territory and manage the lives of its three million residents. This would entail coping with escalating cycles of violence in the West Bank, spilling into Israel, and would require significantly reinforcing IDF deployments at a time when its forces are stretched to the limit across multiple external fronts. As annexation steps would sabotage the Trump 20 Point Plan, they would also force an Israeli reoccupation of the Gaza Strip with no exit strategy.
Security cooperation with the PA is vital to Israel’s security. Its security agencies are highly valued by the IDF and Shin Bet, which credit them with preventing numerous terrorist attacks and saving many Israeli lives.
Annexation steps, combined with the economic strangulation imposed by the government, threaten to lead to the PA’s collapse and the disintegration of its security agencies. In the absence of a governing authority and amidst the risk of a Hamas takeover, this would require the IDF to reoccupy the entire West Bank and to administer (and finance) the lives of three million Palestinians.
Annexation measures fuel Jewish terrorism against Palestinians in the territories, constituting an assault with far‑reaching implications for the security, character, and future of the State of Israel. This is a phenomenon whose leadership has ‘proxies’ in the Knesset, and enjoys government backing and public funding. It is carried out by actors with characteristics of terrorist organizations, driven by a coherent destructive ideological doctrine.
Hundreds of activists take part in these acts of terror, supported by thousands more. The incidents occur on a daily basis and serve a deliberate strategy of instilling fear in the Palestinian population, pushing them into increasingly confined areas, and forcibly removing them from agricultural and communal lands — including, for the first time, in Area A, which by agreement is fully administered by the Palestinian Authority.
At a time when Palestinian society is undergoing radicalization due to the combined effects of the war in Gaza and the absence of hope for a better future, Jewish terrorism accelerates this trend, particularly among the younger Palestinian generation, which is responding with increased support for armed violence and mobilization into terrorist organizations – chief among them Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
Unchecked, this chain of events is likely to ignite a violent uprising in the West Bank, would risk the participation of members of the PA security services and Tanzim activists, thereby endangering Israeli settlers. The spillover of violence and terrorism into sovereign Israel would strain the already limited manpower and other resources of the Israel Police, the Border Police and the Shin Bet.
Annexation steps that lead to full control over the West Bank would impose a significant additional burden on the IDF. It would require substantial expanded deployment dedicated to protecting settlers and the Green Line, at the expense of preparedness for challenges from the north (Syria, Lebanon), the east (Iran), and the south (Gaza, Yemen), at a time when the IDF faces a severe manpower shortage.
Without a functioning PA, amid escalating violence and growing regional hostility (see below), the likelihood of implementing the Trump 20 Point Plan would diminish, and Israel could be dragged into a renewed, bloody reoccupation of the Gaza Strip, managing (and financing) the lives of its two million residents, with no exit strategy.
Associated Risks on the Regional Level
The fierce reactions of regional states to these government moves indicate that security cooperation with neighboring countries would be placed at serious risk; the Abraham Accords could collapse; prospects for normalization with Saudi Arabia would be lost; and Israel would forfeit integration into a regional coalition to contain Iran and its proxies.
Jordan
On three occasions over the past year, the importance of the Hashemite Kingdom’s landmass as Israel’s strategic depth, and of security coordination with it, has been demonstrated in the face of attacks from Iran. These examples represent only the visible tip of the iceberg of the extensive — air and ground — security benefits derived from the peace treaty with Jordan against hostiles to the east and north.
Israel has no substitute for the Kingdom’s contribution to our security, including its extensive efforts to secure our longest border. Yet our government policy has already led to severe tensions, including a rupture between the Royal Palace and the Prime Minister’s Office. Annexation moves threaten to escalate the rift, potentially leading to a severing of relations and the destruction of the security coordination infrastructure.
Egypt
In the peace treaty with the largest and most powerful Arab state, Prime Minister Menachem Begin made a strategic contribution of immense historic magnitude. Egypt’s withdrawal from the circle of war allowed the diversion of resources from defense to other needs. More important, not a single Israeli has fallen because of an Egyptian government decision since the treaty entered into force. Finally, over the decades, security coordination between the two countries has exceeded all expectations.
Egypt’s importance to Israel’s security has gained further significance since Hamas’s takeover of Gaza, the subsequent rounds of fighting, and the October 7 war. Despite past failures to halt smuggling into Gaza, Egypt—where Hamas’s parent movement is outlawed and persecuted—has stood out as the principal restraining force on Hamas and as a more effective mediator than others in all understandings and arrangements between Israel and Hamas. Egypt is also expected to play a central role in implementing Phase II of the Trump Plan, or any alternative scenario that may materialize.
Israel’s policy toward Gaza and the territories, as well as statements by our leaders regarding intentions to expel Palestinians and annex territory, have already generated diplomatic tensions, cooled relations, and caused a prolonged rupture between the Prime Minister and the Egyptian President. De facto annexation in the West Bank is interpreted in Egypt as a prelude to a similar move in Gaza, alongside the threat of expelling two million Gazans into Egyptian territory—a threat repeatedly voiced by government and Knesset members and reflected in published plans by the Minister for Strategic Affairs. The Government decisions thus amplify this threat. They could lead to a collapse in the relations, the loss of security coordination, and Egypt’s accelerated alignment with hostile strategic alternatives.
The Abraham Accords, Saudi Arabia, and a Regional Coalition
The Gaza war led to a significant regression in the intimacy of relations with the Abraham Accords countries. The attack in Doha alarmed all Gulf States and further cooled perceptions of Israel as a reliable partner. Their sharp criticism—alongside Saudi Arabia and others—of government annexation decisions underscores their concern that today’s Israel is unrestrained and destabilizing. Indeed, Saudi Arabia has made it clear that there are no prospects for normalization unless Israel reverses course with respect to the Palestinian issue. A range of Arab and other Muslim countries await its lead and so the potential for region-wide change is rapidly fading.
As a result, Israel risks forfeiting integration into a far-reaching regional strategic initiative to form a coalition to contain Iran and its proxies while advancing the welfare of all its partners. While Israel is sidelined, leading regional actors are organizing without us—if not against us.
Associated Risks on the International Level
In Washington as in Europe, accelerated criticism of Israeli policy, and the responsiveness of other friendly states to increasingly hostile public sentiment could combine into a diplomatic tsunami with economic and security implications.
While exhibiting unprecedented cooperation with Israel regarding Iran, on numerous occasions President Trump has demonstrated resolve to act contrary to the Israeli government’s position on issues important to him, Gaza included. In light of the dramatic erosion of American public support for Israel, particularly among the younger generation in both parties, public opinion and its reflection in Congress might not be counted on to restrain this and future presidents. Israel must carefully weigh the implications of ignoring Trump’s “don’t” concerning annexation, of being held responsible for undermining his normalization initiative with Saudi Arabia and for thwarting his 20 Point Plan, which includes reference to a future Palestinian state and is a flagship of his foreign policy.
The diplomatic tsunami already reaching our shores will intensify if Israel is seen to be implementing de facto annexation. Relations with the international community are likely to deteriorate further. The fact that President Trump initiated and passed UN Security Council Resolution 2803—ignoring Israel’s positions—signals the possibility that, unlike his predecessors, he may not block—and may even initiate—sanctions against Israel. Likewise, recent partial arms embargoes by Western nations should be treated as indications for the potential of more comprehensive ones to come.
These government decisions can be expected also to fuel renewed efforts to delegitimize Israel’s very existence and serve as grounds for labeling it an apartheid state, including the pursuit of indictments in both courts in the Hague, rendering it a pariah with all ensuing consequences for our security and wellbeing.
Associated Risks with Regard to World Jewry
A clear majority of Diaspora Jewry opposes the government’s Palestinian policy. Proceeding with annexation is bound to accelerate the already alarming trend of distancing from Israel, thus undermining the historic partnership in the Zionist project with our brethren abroad.
Global reaction to annexation decisions and the expected fallout from their implementation would aggravate a dilemma already affecting Diaspora Jews’ attitude toward Israel. As the majority among them is opposed to Israel’s conduct in the territories, they might find it difficult to identify with an Israel that no longer reflects their values and is increasingly viewed in their respective non-Jewish circles as sliding toward pariah status due to its conduct in the territories.
Erosion of this essential partnership would constitute a severe blow to the essence of Zionism and to its founding notion that Israel is a joint enterprise of the Jewish People.
Concluding Note: It Is Still Reversible
The anticipated harm to national security across multiple dimensions, and its cumulative destructive impact, is not an act of fate. It derives from government decisions. The government has both the authority and the responsibility to change course.
Accordingly, we urgently call upon our government – current and future – to adopt a policy that seizes on local, regional and international opportunities, and thus enhances our national security, by:
- Rescinding the annexation decisions and abandoning other annexation measures;
- Ending settler violence and abuse of Palestinian residents;
- Shifting approach to the PA (for all its flaws) from adversary to partner;
- Assisting the Trump Administration, the Peace Council, and the Palestinian administration in stabilizing Gaza to ensure a governing alternative to Hamas and its disarmament;
- Reversing the slide toward a bleeding reality of a bi-national state and advancing a security-based plan for civil separation between the two peoples, while maintaining overall security responsibility throughout the territory until robust alternative security arrangements are in place, in the context of a negotiated agreement;
- Joining forces with likeminded states in the region, repairing relations with old peace partners (Egypt and Jordan) and more recent ones (Abraham Accords signatories) and paving the way for normalizing relations with others as well as for Israel’s integration in a US-led regional coalition.
* For a summary of the annexation implications study:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13VGQJvhVH9fiVhh-nLdH0qDy1w_9Xq3w/view?usp=drivesdk
** For reactions of Arab and other states:
https://x.com/KSAmofaEN/status/2026013385079636321/photo/1
