Imposing Certain Sanctions on Persons Undermining Peace, Security, and Stability in the West Bank

Background

Before its revocation, the executive order imposed by President Biden had significant ramifications for U.S. foreign policy and domestic regulations pertaining to the West Bank. It primarily targeted individuals and entities identified as threats to peace and stability in the area, utilizing economic sanctions as a deterrent. The order blocked property and interests within the United States of those entities and individuals engaging in activities undermining peace, making financial dealings with such persons unlawful. This empowered the Department of the Treasury, in partnership with the Department of State, to enforce stringent measures on any foreign operatives or supporters of hostile actions in the region, using targeted sanctions as leverage for diplomatic efforts.

The executive order also led to operational adjustments within federal agencies responsible for international relations and immigration enforcement, particularly prioritizing assessments of visas and entry denials. The Department of Homeland Security and State Department aligned their procedures to ensure that non-citizens implicated in destabilizing activities in the West Bank faced stringent entry restrictions. Consequently, administrative efforts were directed towards identifying individuals under these criteria, effectively impacting global diplomatic relations, especially those involving countries actively engaged in the region's conflict dynamics. Visa issuances saw increased scrutiny, adding layers of evaluation that directly affected immigration and travel connected to the area.

The enforcement mechanism inspired a nuanced shift in social policy, directly affecting NGOs and charitable organizations operating in the West Bank. Given the order's prohibitive stance against funds or support contributing to instability, these entities had to conduct detailed reviews of partnership agreements and financial transactions. This not only exerted pressure on foreign humanitarian operations but also demanded compliance from domestic organizations that risked penalties if indirectly linked to sanctioned activities. The heightened oversight thus inadvertently stymied aid flows intended for innocent civilians, challenging organizations to balance compliance with humanitarian objectives.

Reason for Revocation

Former President Donald Trump’s revocation of the order on January 20, 2025, can be viewed as part of a broader ideological shift in U.S. Middle East policy and international relations under his administration. Trump's approach generally favored less interventionist measures concerning Israel and its territorial confines, aligning with his broader "America First" strategy that prioritized U.S. economic and strategic alliances over global policing. The move could be interpreted as an effort to recalibrate diplomatic relations with Israel, leveraging pro-Israeli sentiment that characterized his preceding tenure.

The revocation likely intended to eliminate what Trump’s administration perceived as undue constraints on Israel's internal affairs, which had been criticized by far-right supporters as overly punitive. By removing the sanctions, Trump signaled a robust reaffirmation of U.S.-Israel ties, reflecting an ideological return to prioritizing bilateral relations without imposing sanctions perceived detrimental to Israeli security policy. It underscored a deliberate attempt to reset the diplomatic climate to one more favorable to Israeli governance and interests.

Additionally, the context surrounding the revocation suggests a desire to foster new negotiations, allowing direct diplomatic engagement instead of punitive economic measures. Trump’s handling of international conflict often pursued bilateral talks over multilateral enforcement measures, facilitating negotiation paths rather than escalation. Thus, by lifting the order, Trump may have aimed to open fresh channels for peace discussions freed from the perceived burden of sanctions.

Revocation further synced with broader Republican advocacy for decreased restrictions on financial transactions and minimized governmental interference in global commerce. Removing the imposed sanctions could therefore be part of an ideological pursuit to bolster cross-border trade and financial liberty, reduced under stringent regulations that accompanied the order. This reflects a wider Republican economic philosophy favoring deregulation and market freedom, even in geopolitically sensitive contexts.

Winners

The primary beneficiaries of the revocation include Israeli settlers and organizations supportive of settlement expansion in the West Bank. By lifting the order, financial and logistical barriers that previously restricted their operations were relaxed, allowing a recalibration of financial engagements and property interests in the region. Settlement organizations, relieved from stringent U.S. economic obstacles, potentially benefit from increased investments and operational freedom, facilitating territorial consolidation efforts.

U.S.-based companies with commercial interests in Israel, particularly those involved in defense or technology sectors, may also gain from the order’s revocation. The easing of sanctions removes impediments that restrained their business dealings in areas seen as politically contentious. Corporations such as Lockheed Martin or Raytheon, known for defense contracts, stand to benefit as open channels allow undisrupted commerce and service delivery in Israeli markets, encompassing contentious territories without the risk of sanctions impacting contractual obligations.

Furthermore, the revocation could benefit certain political factions within the U.S. that advocate for a less interventionist foreign policy framework. Congruent with the Republican ethos of minimizing governmental oversight, these groups may cite the move as a victory for national sovereignty and economic freedom, presenting the order’s removal as a corrective measure against what they perceive as extraterritorial imposition of U.S. policy.

Losers

The clear disadvantage falls upon the Palestinian community residing within the West Bank and entities advocating for their rights. The revocation permits increased activity from pro-settler factions, intensifying challenges in securing land and property rights. Without the checks that came with the original order, Palestinians are left more vulnerable to displacement and property seizures amid heightened settlement activities.

NGOs and international humanitarian organizations operating in the area also face setbacks as protections against destabilizing forces wane. The original order had indirectly supported their efforts by curtailing the financial and operational freedom of entities stoking conflict, thus revocation reintroduces complexities in conflict prevention and peace-building initiatives. These organizations may anticipate increased difficulty in maintaining operational efficacy given the enhanced tension and diminished external support.

Additionally, the revocation poses potential diplomatic challenges for the U.S., particularly in relations with Arab nations advocating for Palestinian interests. By removing the sanctions, the U.S. could face criticism for failing to uphold balanced engagement and perceived bias towards Israeli policies, impacting American diplomatic credibility in broader Middle Eastern negotiations. This could erode trust and cooperation in regional forums addressing peace and conflict resolution efforts.