How would Arab states respond to Israel’s West Bank annexation?

Nearly two years into Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, the conflict has spiralled into a devastating campaign of annihilation.

With ceasefire talks collapsing in Doha and Israelis still captive in Gaza, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s far-right coalition has made its priorities clear: territorial expansion, not de-escalation.

Leading this agenda is the vision of a “Greater Israel” extending all the way to Arab states in the Gulf and even Turkey. As Israeli bombs decimate what remains of Gaza, far-right Israeli finance minister Bezalel Smotrich recently unveiled plans to annex 82 percent of the occupied West Bank – prompting warnings that the centuries-old Palestinian presence in both territories may be erased.

This constitutes the latest effort by the Israeli government to prevent a Palestinian state from ever coming into existence. Smotrich’s threat followed a host of countries announcing their plans to recognise a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly later this month.

A future defined by chaos and isolation

Smotrich’s vision is not rhetorical – it signals a serious escalation that could have explosive consequences for the region.

Israel annexing the vast majority of the West Bank would unleash a future defined by turmoil, endless violence, and ungovernable instability. Such aggressive reordering would make Israel the epicentre of volatility, seen by an alarmed global community as a wrecking force and regional arsonist, consumed by ambitions that generate perpetual insecurity – even for itself.

What lies ahead is not peace, but a spiralling cycle of bloodshed, radicalisation, and international fallout that will haunt the region for generations.

Warning of “extreme instability,” Dr Federica Saini Fasanotti, a senior associate fellow at the Milan-based Italian Institute for International Political Studies, told The New Arab that the “extreme military operations we are observing against the Gaza population – something that is also materialising in a different form in the West Bank – have cracked the foundations of the Israeli nation itself, which will certainly not emerge stronger from this period”.

As she put it, “Netanyahu’s warmongering will not bring anything good to the state of Israel”.

Echoing this concern, Dr Hussein Ibish, a senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute, warned that the entire Middle East would “understand that it sentences the whole area to indefinite warfare, instability, insecurity, and chaos”.

Such a move, he told TNA, would cast Israel as a pariah in the region and likely across much of the world – with the possible exception of the United States – cementing a reputation that could endure for decades. “It will be an utter disaster for everyone, including eventually the Israelis themselves,” he added.

Response from Arab states

Israel proceeding to annex land in the West Bank would trigger significant diplomatic and societal repercussions across the Arab world, likely sparking protests across multiple countries.

In response, governments may implement or expand emergency measures to maintain order. Although officials would act swiftly to contain unrest, many are expected to take a more assertive public stance to reflect domestic sentiment and signal responsiveness amid rising regional pressure.

“Of course, there will be outright condemnation by all Arab states, and it will be expressed by individual states, through the Arab League, Organisation of Islamic Conference and other fora. Arab states will push for a formal UN condemnation through the General Assembly. They will lobby and petition their partners to pressure Israel, calling upon them to place targeted sanctions on the country,” said Dr Neil Quilliam, an associate fellow in the Middle East and North Africa program at Chatham House, in a TNA interview.

The diplomatic ramifications of Smotrich’s call on 3 September for the annexation of the West Bank quickly became apparent, especially from key regional partners.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE), which in 2020 took the landmark step of normalising relations with Israel under the Washington-brokered Abraham Accords, swiftly and pointedly criticised Israel. At the heart of that diplomatic agreement was the clear condition that Israel would suspend any plans to annex territory in the West Bank.

For Abu Dhabi, this commitment was not merely symbolic but foundational to its decision to formalise ties with Tel Aviv. Now, five years on, Israeli officials have stated that their promise to halt annexation efforts has “expired,” signalling what appears to be a dramatic shift away from the Abraham Accords’ original terms – at least as the UAE’s leadership understood them.

The very same day Smotrich issued his call, Lana Nusseibeh, a senior Emirati diplomat, delivered a rare and unequivocal warning. She stated that an Israeli annexation of the West Bank would cross a “red line” for the UAE, stressing that such an action would “severely undermine” the original vision and diplomatic architecture of the Abraham Accords.

Israel’s annexation of land in the West Bank would trigger significant diplomatic and societal repercussions across the Arab world. [Getty]

According to reporting by The Washington Post, which cited an unnamed senior Israeli official, Nusseibeh’s blunt statement “caught Netanyahu’s government off guard” – an indication that the Israeli leadership may have underestimated the political consequences of openly defying one of its most prominent Arab partners.

Some reports claim that Emirati pressure has led Israel to pause its annexation plans for now, but whether Abu Dhabi’s warnings will deter Netanyahu’s government in the medium or long term remains uncertain.

What is clear, however, is that Netanyahu now faces a dilemma: bow to mounting international pressure, including from close Western partners preparing to formally recognise a Palestinian state later this month, or appease his hardline coalition partners, who are clamouring for annexation as a defiant response to growing global recognition of Palestinian sovereignty.

If Israel were to annex much of the West Bank, Arab states would be “absolutely infuriated, including the UAE, which is the friendliest Arab country towards Israel,” Dr Ibish explained to TNA. He believes that “it is an utter catastrophe for the UAE in the making”.

Yet, as much as the leadership in Abu Dhabi would be angry about Israel making such a move in the West Bank, there is good reason to expect the Emirati response to fall short of abrogating the Abraham Accords. This is due to the UAE’s various vested interests in maintaining its normalised relationship with Israel.

“I don’t see the Emiratis being willing to withdraw from the Abraham Accords in part because of their reliance on America’s protection and in part because the Emiratis are still gaining strategic and technological advances by maintaining relations with the Israelis,” commented Ryan Bohl, a Middle East and North African analyst at the risk intelligence company RANE, in a TNA interview.

“But I could easily see the Emiratis becoming more critical of the Israelis and particularly this Israeli government and acting more like Jordan does, in which they use diplomatic threats and ruptures to try to shift Israeli policy and influence Washington,” he added.

“Given that the UAE was one of Obama’s biggest critics following his use of the red line in Syria, one can only imagine that a great deal of thought was given to Lana’s statement. As such, I do now foresee the UAE suspending, rather than withdrawing from its participation in the Abraham Accords, but diplomatic ties will remain in place and high-level contacts will continue, and Abu Dhabi will work closely with the US on trying to find a resolution,” Dr Quilliam explained to TNA.

While acknowledging the difficulty of forecasting the precise steps Arab governments might take in response to an Israeli annexation of the West Bank, Srboljub Peović, a research assistant at the Institute of European Studies, cautioned that such a move could spark political upheaval across the Arab world reminiscent of the 1947–48 Nakba.

While such turmoil would be highly problematic for the UAE, other Arab states, particularly Jordan, would face far more existential stakes.

“The risk is particularly acute given the current situation in Lebanon and Syria, countries that host significant numbers of Palestinians. The one country that would almost certainly be impacted the most would be Jordan, a country whose population is intertwined with that of the Palestinians and a country that was being increasingly targeted by various Israeli extremists,” Peović told TNA.

Netanyahu is trying to appease his hardline coalition partners, who are clamouring for annexation as a defiant response to growing global recognition of Palestinian sovereignty. [Getty]

Observing how Israel’s annexation of the West Bank would constitute an “existential” and mortal” threat to the Jordanian monarchy, Dr Ibish said that Tel Aviv making this move would enrage Jordanians to the point where officials in Amman would “probably break their [1994 peace] agreement with Israel”.

Dr Quilliam expects Amman to reiterate its stance that any Israeli move toward forcibly displacing Palestinians in the West Bank toward Jordan will be understood by the Hashemite Kingdom as nothing less serious than an “act of war”.

Although he believes Egypt and Jordan’s treaties with Israel will probably persist in the event of a West Bank annexation, Dr Quilliam explained that “diplomatic ties will hit [an all-time] low and, in the case of Jordan, military ties will take their first major hit”.

Future of the Abraham Accords

Experts told TNA that this move would further dim prospects of more Arab states joining the Abraham Accords – already bleak due to the Israeli genocide in Gaza.

Dr Ibish believes that such a move by Tel Aviv could “set back Israel’s integration in the region decades”. Although he told TNA that the annexation of West Bank land is unlikely to prompt Bahrain to withdraw from the Abraham Accords, he emphasised that it would “absolutely rule out any chance of Saudi Arabia or any other Arab state recognising Israel in the foreseeable future”.

After years of being overshadowed by Iran and its regional allies such as Yemen’s Houthi rebels and Lebanon’s Hezbollah as the primary regional adversary, Israel is once again emerging as the focal point of Arab public anger, said Dr Quilliam, who added that Tel Aviv’s actions in the West Bank, layered atop ongoing conflicts in Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and with Iran, are reshaping how both Arab governments and their citizens view Israel – potentially for years to come.

“As such, the ambitions of most Abraham Accords states and prospective member states to forge close working and beneficial ties with Israel to support their ambitious visions will be over, and a regional security environment will begin to take shape,” he commented.

“Whilst non-Arab states, such as Azerbaijan might be persuaded to join the Accords, no Arab state would consider such a move given current circumstances, but in the event that Israel annexes the West Bank, then it will put back the prospect for at least a decade, if not much longer,” Dr Quilliam added.

“Having said that, Israel has no interest in regional integration at present, and is more set on dominating the region through force.”

Giorgio Cafiero is the CEO of Gulf State Analytics

Follow him on Twitter: @GiorgioCafiero