Two weeks ago, the J-Post published an exclusive report claiming that in January 2020, then-President Trump gave Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu authorization to annex Judea and Samaria. The authorization reportedly came in the form of a three-page letter dated January 26, two days before Trump presented his “Vision for Peace” plan outlining an agreement between the Palestinians and Israel. The letter promised that the US would recognize Israeli sovereignty over parts of Judea and Samaria conditional on Israel recognizing a Palestinian state in the remaining parts of Judea and Samaria, comprising about 70% of the region. 

“In exchange for Israel implementing these policies and formally adopting detailed territorial plans not inconsistent with the Conceptual Map attached to my Vision – the United States will recognize Israeli sovereignty in those areas of the West Bank that my vision contemplates as being part of Israel,” the letter read. 

The plan would have allowed Israel to declare sovereignty over all its 120 officially recognized settlements in Judea and Samaria as well as over all of Jerusalem.

The deal came after the Palestinian Authority cut off relations with Washington after the Trump administration recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. It is not believed that the Palestinians would have accepted the deal as it called for the disarming of Gaza.

The deal stated that if Israel accepted the deal and the Palestinians rejected it, Israel would have US support to begin annexing settlements unilaterally. 

The letter obtained by the J-Post was not exactly a revelation as, during the press conference announcing the plan, Netanyahu announced that the Israeli government would immediately annex the Jordan Valley and West Bank settlements while committing not to create new settlements in areas left to the Palestinians for at least four years. Immediately after the speeches, Netanyahu said he would bring the extension of Israeli sovereignty over parts of the West Bank to a cabinet vote the following week.

After the announcement in 2020, US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman claimed that the Trump administration had given permission for an immediate annexation, stating that “Israel does not have to wait at all” and “we will recognize it.”

The Likud spokesman tweeted that Israeli sovereignty over settlements would be declared on the following Sunday.

After these reactions, the Trump administration clarified that no such green light for annexation had been given. Trump later explained that “I got angry, and I stopped it because that was really going too far.” 

But this version of the events is being disputed. In his book Sledgehammer, published in February, Friedman claimed that his claims about the West Bank were in total agreement with Jared Kushner, who President Trump had tasked with negotiating between the Palestinians and Israelis. 

“The accusation that I was running my own agenda with Netanyahu about [applying Israeli] sovereignty [to parts of the West Bank] and not letting the president know, not letting anybody know, contrary to the wishes of Jared — it’s 100% false, 100% false,” Friedman told The Times of Israel in February.

But one of the naysayers was Kushner, who contradicted Friedman’s account and criticized Netanyahu’s statements in his book Breaking History: A White House Memoir, published earlier this month. Kushner claimed that he was enraged at Netanyahu’s speech. 

“This was not what we had negotiated,” writes Kushner. “Under our plan, we would eventually recognize Israel’s sovereignty over agreed­ upon areas if Israel took steps to advance Palestinian statehood within the territory we outlined.”

US recognition of Israeli sovereignty would not be immediate. It would be gradual and might not be given at all. Kushner described his reaction to Netanyahu’s speech which he watched from the White House.

“I grabbed my chair so intensely that my knuckles turned white as if my grip could make Bibi stop. I had explicitly asked Israeli ambassador [to the US] Ron Dermer to make sure Bibi kept his remarks brief and above the politics of the day,” Kushner continues. “In both tone and substance, the speech was way off the mark. It contained nothing magnanimous or conciliatory toward the Palestinians. It was essentially a campaign speech for his domestic political audience, and it misrepresented our plan.”

At the time, Kushner was angry at Friedman but the two eventually reconciled with Friedman, understanding that immediate recognition of sovereignty was not possible due to international considerations.