Alwaght- While lack of domestic cohesion, massive international opposition, and a fear of unpredicted consequences of annexation of the West Bank to the already-occupied territories forced the Israeli regime, especially its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to retreat from fast going ahead with the plan, it seems that the Israelis are waiting for a green light and firm support from Washington to take such a big risk.
Now media talk about a possible emergency meeting of Trump cabinet in the coming days to make up its mind on the Israeli plan. Israeli Channel 13, citing Israeli and American sources, has reported that the White House is expected to talk next week if it should give green light to Tel Aviv or not about annexing parts of Palestinian West Bank.
On the other side, the Spokesman to the Palestinian Authority Nabil Abu Radina in comments on the developments said that the next ten days will be decisive in determining the final fate of the peace process between the Palestinians and the Israeli regime.
Tying the plan to the White House’s decision will give rise to a question: What will be Trump’s decisive decision in the forthcoming days? To give an answer to this question, we need to check a range of elements involved in the decisions taken by Trump as a president with erratic character.
Trump’s risk drives
Since his assumption of the post of the president in 2017, Donald Trump threw his weight behind the Israeli regime and PM Netanyahu in a variety of ways. As part of this support, he unleashed a set of anti-Palestinian plans, on top of them the so-called “deal of the century” which is seen as the parent plan in his pro-Israeli push with its essence being legitimization of the Israeli occupation and scraping the Palestinian refugees right to return home.
Although the annexation of West Bank was not brazenly cited in the deal, its emphasis on dropping the right for refugees to return home, which is one of the main sticking points in the so-called peace agreement of Oslo between the Arab governments and the Israeli regime, or its insistence on blocking the foundation of an independent Palestinian state with Eastern Al-Quds (Jerusalem) as its capital in practice mean paving the way for transmutation and gradual annexation of Palestinian-controlled West Bank to the other occupied territories.
Many believe that the White House's inability to legitimize and implement without troubles the deal of the century does not mean that it is pushing it out of its agenda. Actually, Trump and the Zionists around him will go to great lengths to implement the plan while he is holding the office.
But due to the troubles the Trump administration is grappling with these days, including the nationwide anti-racism protests, the release of a book by Trump’s former National Security Advisor John Bolton that reveals many secrets from the Trump policy, and the mishandling of the coronavirus crisis that has so far taken lives of thousands of Americans, it is highly likely that Trump and his team of advisors will take a foreign adventure to divert the American public opinion from the home developments, especially that Trump has a record of such actions for media maneuvers.
Also, it should be taken into consideration that as the US moves closer to the presidential election, Trump broadens his special expectation of support from the highly powerful and wealthy pro-Israeli lobbies. Trump's go-ahead to Netanyahu for West Bank annexation will certainly win the contentment of the Zionist lobbies for the president.
The silence and even painful agreement of the Arab countries with the deal of the century which means that the Persian Gulf Arab monarchies are tacitly siding with the White House project for a showdown to the Palestinian cause is another encouraging element for Trump to disregard the international opposition.
What are the obstacles ahead of White House green light to Tel Aviv?
But beside the possibility of the US giving Netanyahu the freedom to annex the West Bank, there are factors limiting the American choices that cannot be passed easily.
One factor is, apparently, the White House’s awareness of the high likelihood of compromised security in the occupied territories as the annexation will trigger protests and resistance. Israeli security has always been one of the main poles of the American strategy in the West Asia region. Certainly, the American strategists are aware of the dangers of seizure of the West Bank to Israeli security.
Another obstacle is Jordan's severe opposition to the plan. Since its publicization, Amman repeatedly warned about the consequences. The warnings came from the highest levels of rule, namely from King Abdullah II. He in mid-May warned Tel Aviv of a "massive conflict” if it proceeds with plans to annex large parts of the occupied West Bank.
“Leaders who advocate a one-state solution do not understand what that would mean,” Jordan’s king said in an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel in May.
Recently, Jordanian diplomatic sources told Al-Mayadeen news channel that the king told the Americans and Israelis that Amman will withdraw from the Wadi Araba peace deal of 1994 with Tel Aviv if the Israeli plan materialized. According to the treaty, Jordan accepted to recognize the Israeli regime as a state.
Yet another obstacle is the division into the White House. There have been reports of gaps among the American administration officials over the plan. According to the Israeli Channel 13, the White House meeting on the Netanyahu’s plan will be held under the clouds of differences. While the US ambassador to Tel Aviv David M. Friedman advocates the idea, others in the administration are conservative about it. Even Secretary of State Mike Pompeo proved cautious about the plan after returning from a visit to the occupied territories to discuss the annexation with the Israelis in mid-May. However, he has lately moved close to Friedman's stance someway and is likely to stand for annexation.