Trump Orders Netanyahu Not to Annex Judea and Samaria Amid UN Diplomacy

By: Fern Sidman

As world leaders converge on New York for the United Nations General Assembly, the corridors of power are humming with rumors of new Middle East diplomacy. Central among these is the revelation, reported by Politico and reiterated in a report in The Independent of the UK, that President Trump privately reassured Arab and Muslim leaders that he would not allow Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to annex Judea and Samaria, the territories Israel liberated during the Six-Day War of 1967.

The issue of annexation has become increasingly contentious in recent months, fueled by growing international recognition of a Palestinian state by Western governments such as the United Kingdom, France, Australia, and Canada. Several senior ministers within Netanyahu’s coalition have publicly called for annexation as a countermeasure, framing the step as both a sovereign right and a strategic necessity.

Yet Trump, who has historically positioned himself as one of Israel’s staunchest allies, reportedly sought to calm Arab fears by promising that Washington would not endorse such a move. According to the information provided in The Independent of the UK on Thursday, the president presented this assurance during a closed-door meeting with eight Arab and Muslim leaders on the sidelines of the UN gathering on Tuesday.

The meeting, attended by the heads of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Pakistan, and Indonesia, was framed by Trump as “successful” and “fruitful.” The Independent report noted that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, often among the loudest critics of Israel, described the discussion as “pleasing,” signaling cautious optimism that the U.S. is prepared to act as a balancing force in the region.

Sources told Politico that Trump’s team even distributed a white paper to the attending delegations, outlining a 21-point plan for ending the Gaza war and addressing wider regional instability. Among the assurances was the explicit pledge that annexation of Judea and Samaria would not be on the table.

Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, echoed this sentiment, telling reporters that the administration was “hopeful—and I might say even confident—that in the coming days we’ll be able to announce some sort of breakthrough.”

According to the information contained in The Independent of the UK report, this breakthrough hinges on persuading both Israel and its Arab neighbors to adopt a roadmap that freezes territorial ambitions in exchange for broader dialogue about reconstruction in Gaza and the future role of the Palestinian Authority.

For Netanyahu, however, the issue remains thorny. In remarks earlier this week, the prime minister declared unequivocally that “a Palestinian state will not happen,” dismissing recent recognitions by Western powers as a “reward for terror.” His allies within the coalition have been even more vocal, pushing him to annex at least portions of Area C—territory that comprises around 60 percent of Judea and Samaria and is home to over half a million Jewish settlers.

The report in The Independent of the UK highlighted a report from Israel’s Channel 12 which claimed that Netanyahu confided to Secretary of State Marco Rubio that he was under “intense pressure” from his coalition partners to act on annexation swiftly. For Netanyahu, balancing coalition demands against international diplomacy has become an increasingly precarious act.

The renewed chatter about annexation has alarmed Western governments. Recognition of a Palestinian state by the UK and others was meant, in their view, to affirm support for Palestinian aspirations while simultaneously nudging Israel back toward negotiations. Instead, the move appears to have provoked a counter-reaction among Netanyahu’s allies, who interpret the recognitions as hostile acts legitimizing terrorism.

Arab leaders, for their part, view annexation as a red line. The Independent of the UK report emphasized that during the closed-door session, leaders from Saudi Arabia and Jordan warned Trump that annexation would inflame an already volatile region, potentially unraveling recent normalization agreements and plunging the Palestinian territories into renewed chaos.

The stakes are particularly high for Jordan, whose stability is closely linked to developments in Judea and Samaria, and for Saudi Arabia, which has sought to carefully calibrate its warming ties with Israel while retaining credibility with the wider Arab world.

Trump’s handling of the issue reflects his characteristic transactional style. According to the information in The Independent of the UK, while he has consistently touted his closeness with Netanyahu, he also sees value in courting Arab states as part of a broader regional strategy. His insistence that Israel refrain from annexation appears designed to preserve his leverage with Arab leaders and sustain momentum for what he hopes will be a grand bargain to end the Gaza war.

At the same time, Trump has stopped short of issuing any public condemnation of Israeli settlement policy, leaving open the possibility that future concessions might be tied to progress in negotiations. His approach, observers note, is less about ideology than about positioning himself as the indispensable dealmaker in a fractured region.

Among the most notable reactions to Trump’s assurances came from Erdogan. Long a vocal critic of Israel and often hostile to U.S. policy, Erdogan surprised some observers by praising the meeting’s outcome. The Independent of the UK report quoted the Turkish leader as saying he was “pleased” with the discussions, hinting that Turkey might be willing to cooperate with Trump’s framework if it indeed restrains Israeli territorial ambitions.

That Erdogan, who has frequently hosted Hamas leaders and criticized the Abraham Accords, would publicly back even a limited U.S.-led initiative suggests the importance Arab and Muslim leaders attach to the annexation issue.

Despite Trump’s promises, the clash of agendas remains sharp. Netanyahu’s insistence that “there will be no Palestinian state” directly contradicts the hopes of Arab leaders, who view statehood as the cornerstone of any sustainable peace. Meanwhile, Trump’s pledge not to allow annexation is unlikely to satisfy those in Israel who see Judea and Samaria as integral to the nation’s historic homeland.

As The Independent of the UK report pointed out, this tension reflects the fundamental paradox of Middle East diplomacy: balancing irreconcilable narratives while trying to prevent another explosion of violence.

As Netanyahu prepares to address the UN and later meet Trump in Washington, the promise not to annex Judea and Samaria may prove to be both a diplomatic gesture and a political minefield. For Arab leaders, it offers reassurance that the U.S. remains a moderating force. For Netanyahu, it risks deepening fissures within his own coalition. And for Trump, it is a calculated gamble aimed at casting himself as the architect of a new regional order.

Whether this balancing act can hold remains uncertain. But as The Independent of the UK report noted, what is clear is that the fate of Judea and Samaria—long one of the thorniest issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—once again sits at the very heart of the region’s fragile diplomacy.