Why Israeli annexation of the West Bank is a red line for the Middle East

Israeli soldiers confront a Palestinian man in the occupied West Bank. The UN has recorded more than 1,000 attacks by Israeli settlers across the territory this year. David Lombeida for The National

When West Bank resident Badran Moussa built a home for himself and his family 30 years ago in the Palestinian village of Al Mazraah Al Gharbiyah, relations with a neighbouring Israeli settlement were not exactly warm but direct confrontation was infrequent. Times have changed, however, and Mr Moussa’s family this week shared with The National the frightening reality of living under siege.

Firial Zahed, Mr Moussa’s daughter-in-law, said that since the Gaza war began in October 2023, what was once a peaceful, if austere, life has become a harrowing experience as young settlers attack their homes and property with impunity. The near-daily assaults and intimidation are not isolated incidents; the UN has recorded more than 1,000 attacks by Israeli settlers in 230 communities across the occupied West Bank so far this year. These have led to the deaths of 11 Palestinians, with 700 others injured.

Some leading Israeli politicians, including Cabinet members, are indifferent to this criminal campaign, furthering as it does their stated goal of total control over the West Bank and the blocking of a sovereign Palestinian state. Given the centrality of Israel's occupation of Palestine to so many other developments in the Middle East, it should be no surprise that the UAE this week made it clear that enough is enough.

Israel's Smotrich approves settlement in bid to 'bury' idea of Palestinian state

01:25

“Annexation of the West Bank would constitute a red line for the UAE,” said Lana Nusseibeh, Assistant Minister for Political Affairs and Envoy of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. “It would severely undermine the vision and spirit of the [Abraham] Accords, end the pursuit of regional integration and would alter the widely shared consensus on what the trajectory of this conflict should be – two states living side by side in peace, prosperity and security.”

It is almost five years since the Abraham Accords were signed in Washington. The deal was a bold, strategic move that sought to redefine relationships in the Middle East after decades of division, all while keeping Palestine at the heart of the conversation. This included seeing off an Israeli threat to annex the West Bank at the time.

That threat has returned with force. Although the relationship that began with the Abraham Accords produced many tangible benefits for the region, with every day that passes in the West Bank more Palestinian land is stolen, more settlements are built and the military-backed Israeli occupation becomes more entrenched. This makes the job of maintaining a pragmatic, working relationship with Israel all the more difficult.

Given the Palestine-Israel conflict’s centrality to so many other developments in the Middle East, it should be no surprise that the UAE this week made it clear that enough is enough

Israeli figures once insisted that the country sought peace but lacked a partner to achieve it. However, many neighbouring countries in the Middle East, when confronted by Israel’s destruction of Gaza, the presence of Israeli forces in Syria and Lebanon as well as the country’s long-range strikes on Yemen, will decide that partnership with an aggressive power is not possible. "The Israeli government seeks to impose hegemony over our Arab world," Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi said at a meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo on Thursday, succinctly expressing the apprehension many in the region feel at Israeli encroachment.

Such increasing alienation would frustrate the stated desire of US President Donald Trump to expand the Abraham Accords to include more countries. The vision of a more connected, prosperous Middle East is being sacrificed for Israel's short-term tactical gains, such as settlement building, moves that masquerade as a long-term strategy. Israel’s leaders may not be listening to critics of the country – but they should listen to their partners.