It stands to reason that President-elect Donald Trump’s staff members tasked with formulating his administration’s foreign policy are monitoring the issues with which the State Department currently concerns itself. One can assume, too, that they did not miss the department’s Nov. 14 statement in response to the decision by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government to approve proposed legislation retroactively legalizing illegal outposts in the West Bank (by means of advancing in the Knesset the “regularization law’’). The statement said the Barack Obama administration was “deeply concerned” about the approval of the proposed legislation, which contradicts international law and paves the way for the legalization of dozens of illegal outposts deep in the West Bank. Spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau threw the ball into Israel’s court, saying it had to choose between the desire to build more settlements or to preserve “the possibility of peace” by promoting a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The answer of the ministers who voted in favor of the controversial bill is completely clear: They would rather build more and more settlements. They never supported the two-state solution, but unlike Netanyahu, who claimed to support it but did all in his power to undermine it — mostly by encouraging the settlement enterprise — they practice what they preach. They have not missed a single opportunity to express their decisive opposition to the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank. Knowing that most of his ruling coalition members, and even most of his Likud Knesset faction, are unwilling to even hear the combination of the two words “Palestinian state,” Netanyahu has over the years avoided putting the two-state solution to a political party test. He never brought up the principles that he laid out in his 2009 Bar-Ilan speech — i.e., the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel — for a vote by his party, government or Knesset. Instead, he rolled the ball into the Palestinian court and claimed that President Mahmoud Abbas’ refusal to recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish nation was the real obstacle to peace.

According to a leaked email made public on WikiLeaks, had Hillary Clinton won the elections, she would have continued with the game known as the “peace process” without making any effort to score goals. In the leaked email exposed by WikiLeaks, Clinton wrote to her senior advisers that a “Potemkin” — meaning, for show only — peace process between Israel and the Palestinians is preferable to a freeze in diplomacy. Netanyahu seems to be betting on the fact that after he drops the word “elect” from his title, President Trump will adopt a similar attitude to that of the former secretary of state.

Even if Trump goes along with this policy for managing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (instead of resolving it), Netanyahu will have to prevent any shock waves that would call attention to the Israeli occupation and force the international community to take a stand. In a position paper he posted Nov. 15 on the Institute for National Security Studies’ website, which he directs, former head of military intelligence Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin recommended that the government renew at once the understandings outlined in the 2004 letter sent by President George W. Bush to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. In it, Bush expressed support for the annexation to Israel of areas in the West Bank with a dense Jewish population, commonly known as “settlement blocs.” Yadlin believes such an understanding would significantly reduce tensions regarding the settlement issue, which have poisoned ties between Israel and the United States over the past eight years.