We examine the relation between changes of world order and changes in national discourses about territorial conflicts, using the Israeli case of transformations of discourse over the occupied territories: In Netanyahu’s 2009 Bar-Ilan speech he reiterated his commitment to seeking a two-state solution based on negotiations (albeit with firm preconditions) with the Palestinian Authority. By 2019 the predominant talk among decision-makers and advocates was about the extension of Israeli sovereignty to all or portions of the West Bank. Trump’s administration seemed to greenlight sovereignty talk at least as an interim arrangement. With the replacement of Trump by Biden, Israeli discourse might shift yet again. Through interviews, media analysis and discourse studies of public statements we explore whether realist, constructivist, or preference-based IR theories of changes in state behavior actually explain the real-world outcomes in Israel and Palestine. Realism is supported if Israeli discourse has shifted because American wishes have shifted; IR constructivism is supported if Israeli leaders perceive a changed international environment in which annexations, banned since 1945, are once again permissible; preference-based theories are strengthened if annexationist voices on the right have gained power that Netanyahu feels compelled to heed.