History is replete with examples of leaders who, in the face of failure, have sought to reframe calamity as triumph. The transactional politics of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President-elect Donald Trump are poised to offer a new chapter in this tradition.
With Trump’s reelection, the Middle East could soon witness a deal of extraordinary cynicism: Ending the war in Gaza in exchange for Israeli annexation of parts of the West Bank.
For Netanyahu, such a move would be the ultimate exercise in narrative manipulation. It would allow him to claim that he not only subdued Hamas, but also reshaped the map of the Middle East. At the same time, it would deflect attention from the devastating security failures of Oct. 7, 2023. For Trump, it would be a theatrical masterstroke — an opportunity to stage a grand deal early in his second term, feed his base with the optics of strength and cement his legacy as a “master negotiator.”
Both leaders are heirs to a long tradition of transactional politics, where short-term optics take precedence over long-term stability. Trump’s 2018 summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un — touted as a breakthrough for global peace, but ultimately serving as a hollow spectacle that elevated a brutal dictator on the world stage — exemplifies how leaders can turn moments of crisis into self-serving spectacles.
Netanyahu has long played a similar game, framing West Bank settlement expansions as “punishment” for Palestinian aggression and using military operations to bolster his image as Israel’s ultimate defender. The prospect of trading Gaza for West Bank annexation fits seamlessly into this pattern, allowing Netanyahu to reframe the war’s end not as a concession but as the fulfillment of his promise of “total victory.”
Oct. 7 looms large over Netanyahu’s calculations. The Hamas massacre exposed not only a failure of Israeli intelligence but also a collapse of the “Netanyahu doctrine” — the belief that Israeli deterrence could insulate the state from existential threats. For Netanyahu, the political fallout has been devastating, with public trust in his leadership hitting historic lows.
Ending the Gaza war, even as he frames it as a victory, offers Netanyahu an opportunity to deflect blame and shift focus. By tying the war’s conclusion to a historic act of annexation, he could rewrite the narrative of his leadership, presenting Oct. 7 as the prelude to a decisive reordering of Israel’s borders.
There is no doubt that approach would be driven more by internal political pressure than by geopolitical strategy. Netanyahu’s coalition is dependent on the support of the far-right ideologues Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir, who have framed the Gaza war as an existential battle that must continue to its conclusion, resisting any suggestion of a ceasefire. Yet even they have a price. For Smotrich and Ben Gvir, West Bank annexation represents the pinnacle of their political vision. By offering annexation as the ultimate nationalist prize, Netanyahu could unify his coalition under a shared triumph while sidestepping the risks of an endless war in Gaza.
While calls to resettle Gaza have made headlines, rebuilding settlements in Gaza would face immense international and logistical barriers, making it an improbable reality. However, these narratives serve another purpose: increasing pressure on Trump to accept annexation as a counterweight. By presenting Gaza resettlement as a potential path, Netanyahu’s government might be angling for a scenario where resettlement is rejected internationally, but Israel is allowed to maintain military control over northern Gaza and the ability to reenter southern Gaza at will. This “practical compromise” could sidestep the question of resettlement while ensuring “strategic gains” that pave the way for West Bank annexation.
For Trump, the deal offers irresistible optics. Facilitating such a move would position him as the architect of a bold realignment in the Middle East, bringing “peace” to Gaza while championing Israel’s sovereignty in the West Bank. His evangelical base would see annexation as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, while his far-right supporters would hail it as the definitive rejection of a two-state solution and the ultimate embrace of Israel.
The stage for this bargain is already being set. Netanyahu’s appointment of Yechiel Leiter as Israeli ambassador to the U.S. and Trump’s nomination of Mike Huckabee as U.S. ambassador to Israel signal a clear alignment of interests. Leiter, a staunch advocate for annexation, is a Netanyahu loyalist with a history of promoting maximalist visions of Israeli sovereignty. Huckabee, a longtime Trump ally and champion of the settler movement, provides a powerful voice for annexation within U.S.-Israel relations. Together, Leiter and Huckabee form a diplomatic echo chamber, reinforcing the narratives that will justify this deal.
But make no mistake: The costs of this cynical bargain would be profound. While the cessation of hostilities in Gaza is desperately needed, annexation of the West Bank could trigger untold unrest and more violence. It would also deepen divisions within Israeli society, further isolate Israel internationally and crush any remaining hopes for a two-state solution. For Palestinians, it would represent yet another chapter in a long history of dispossession and disenfranchisement, with their futures traded away for the political survival of leaders who view them as pawns in some larger game.
For Netanyahu, such a deal may temporarily preserve his political survival. For Trump, it may burnish his image as a dealmaker. But for the people of the region, it would be a stark reminder that in the politics of cynicism, it is always the people who pay the highest price.
Raoul Wootliff is head of strategic communications at Number 10 Strategies, an international strategic, research and communications consultancy. A former journalist, he was previously the Times of Israel’s political correspondent and host of its Daily Briefing podcast.
