World Struggles to Stand Against Israeli Annexation

With less than a week until Israeli annexation plans could feasibly commence, countries around the world are expressing very different reactions to Israel’s intended moves. The responses have been varied as global alliances, religious convictions, and economic factors weigh on nations’ willingness to risk conflict with Israel and its powerful ally in Washington.

While few nations have expressed outright support for the clear violation of international law, the rhetoric employed by those in opposition indicates that few are willing to position themselves as “anti-Israeli” or risk the ire of our global hegemon. That annexation would risk the local peace progress is nothing but a statement of simple fact, but most world leaders are reluctant to venture beyond restating this.

The EU

European leaders have received Israel’s annexation plans with much bombastic diplomatic language, but have been reluctant to make any threats if Israel proceeds with its planned violation of international law.

Germany’s foreign minister, Heiko Maas, traveled to Israel to discuss the matter, but even before departure had to admit he would offer no practical threat that could provide an incentive for Israel to halt its plans.

Over 1,000 parliamentarians have since signed a letter opposing Israel’s planned annexation, but the letter does little more than express “serious concerns” or highlight the “destabilizing potential” of Israel’s publicly stated intention to break international conventions on warfare, the Charter of the United Nations, and the basic premise of national sovereignty.

The US

In the US wide-spread political support for Israel has led to fragmented partisan splits on the issue. While many politicians have spoken out against annexation, the language used reveals much more concern about implications for Israel’s security than the well being of “annexed” Palestinians.

Their entire concept of an “agreed upon” annexation according to an unsigned peace plan originates from diplomatic novice Jared Kushner’s heavily criticized proposal. Much of the US press has opposed annexation but has done so primarily from a perspective that focuses on Israeli security.

Many have claimed that the annexation plans, and their timing, are a direct Trump ploy to create a new narrative before the US presidential elections in November 2020.

Arab nations

The Gulf Cooperation Council and the Arab League have condemned annexation plans and endorsed the establishment of an independent Palestine. However, other than highlighting the obvious breaches of international law, the Arab world has so far not shown a united front against a possible expansion of Israeli land at the expense of Palestinians.

Only Jordan has posed a clear ultimatum to Israel by threatening war. Jordan is highly dependent on the US and fears its possible retaliation, just like many Arab states, but stands alone in offering a practical disincentive to Israel’s plans. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sent the director of the Israeli secret service to Amman last week with a message for Jordan’s King Abdullah II. Whether Israel can force Jordan to renege on its commitment remains to be seen.

Israeli Settlers

People living in Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories generally oppose annexation plans. Even though many of these settlements would become part of Israel following annexation, settlers fear the plan does not go far enough and would create momentum for the establishment of a small, fragmented Palestinian state, which they categorically oppose.

Billboards along Israeli highways feature Hebrew slogans urging Netanyahu to “do it right,” calling on him to annex all of what remains of Palestinian land. While annexation of more land than included in the Trump “peace plan” would be controversial, it would be no more illegal than Israel’s current plans.

Palestinians

For Palestinians, especially those living in the occupied territories, annexation is simply an inevitable reality. “These areas are already [as good as] annexed… It’s all in their hands” a farmer in the West Bank told the BBC. But many Palestinians see the looming annexation as the logical next step in the decades-long Israeli encroachment on Palestinian territory.

Israel has intensified evictions of Palestinians in the Jordan Valley and locals see annexation as inevitable. “Everyone is scared about annexation, no one wants to live under the occupation’s law,” Palestinian activist Sami Hureini told Al Jazeera, as locals appear to have no illusions over Israeli intentions.

The UN

On June 24, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres joined in the growing chorus of voices opposing annexation rhetorically. “We are at a watershed moment,” Guterres told the UN Security Council (UNSC), saying, “If implemented, annexation would constitute a most serious violation of international law.”

But the head of the UN is as powerless to stop Israel as those living in the occupied territories. As long as Israel proceeds with the blessing of the US, international law is of little consequence.  The power of the US alone could prevent any strong response against annexation.

The crisis over Israeli annexation has revealed once again that we are all living under American hegemony that in practice can supersede international law, the UN, and the will of the rest of the globe. Underneath political posturing, angry letters, and formal diplomacy, all nations continue to tremble at the prospect of angering the US.

Israeli Apartheid-Denier Can Deny No Longer

In an interview with the Associated Press published on June 24, Benjamin Pogrund stated that Israeli annexation would turn Israel into an apartheid state. “There will be Israeli overlords in an occupied area. And the people over whom they will be ruling will not have basic rights,” Pogrund described the potential future of Israel.

Prolific denier

Benjamin Pogrund was born and raised in South Africa and witnessed its Apartheid-era atrocities firsthand. He became a renowned writer on the topic and fostered friendships with Nelson Mandela and Robert Sobukwe as he wrote on Black issues in the white-ruled South African state.

But while Pogrund strongly opposed Apartheid in South Africa until its fall in the 1990s, in 1997 he moved to Israel and became a prominent denier of the similarities between the two countries’ treatment of their native populations. Not counting those people living in the occupied territories as citizens, Pogrund denied their treatment as apartheid-like.

Like many Israel apologetics, he made the convenient distinction of not counting Israel’s atrocities and racism outside its walls and fences. He authored a 2007 New York Times op-ed highlighting several successful Arab Israeli citizens as evidence for an absence of racial discrimination, while ignoring the people in occupied territories under de-facto Israeli rule.

Cognitive dissonance

Pogrund would, in the same article, deny that Jews and Arabs receive different treatment while also arguing Palestinian refugees could not return because they would become a majority, destroying Israel’s “purpose” of being a Jewish state. Those who called for a boycott on Israel Pogrund would label as antisemitic, while interpreting Israeli acts as a “response to Palestinian terrorism.”

For decades Pogrund has ignored the obvious similarities between both apartheid regimes. He appears to have conveniently ignored that while South Africa was in its last stages of shaking off colonization, Israel is still actively colonizing native land.

He downplayed the wall seperating Israelis from the West Bank as “mainly a wire fence, except in populated areas” that was there “primarily to keep out would-be suicide bombers.” By Pogrund’s definition, if South African whites had chased away the country’s Black population and kept them in occupied areas as does Israel, there would not have been “apartheid.”

After decades of witnessing and opposing South African Apartheid, he has spent the rest of his career making pro-Israeli arguments, similar to those of the South African regime that justified violence against Black citizens, as a logical government response to “violent terrorists.”

Changing definitions

Pogrund opposes annexation because it would undermine the cognitive dissonance that he and many others have applied to the Palestinian people living in the occupied territories. Annexing their land would result in them being considered to be some sort of Israeli citizen, and suddenly their treatment would indeed “count” as apartheid.

“At least it has been a military occupation. Now we are going to put other people under our control and not give them citizenship. That is apartheid. That is an exact mirror of what apartheid was,” Pogrund said.

Pogrund started to have doubts when, in 2018, the Israeli parliament enacted the “Nation State Law.” This defined Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people while downgrading the status of another ethnic group, Arab Israelis. Yet, he frames his opposition not as revulsion with the treatment of local Arabs, but instead fears that it would reduce safety and prosperity for local Jewish Israelis.

Annexation

The increasingly colonial attitude of the Netanyahu government appears to have posed something of an intellectual crisis for Pogrund as he has slowly learned of his own complicity in defending Israeli actions. News about the government’s annexation plans made him unable to write on the topic: “I couldn’t bring myself to do it,” Pogrund said, adding that “quite frankly, I just feel so bleak about it, that it is so stupid and ill-advised and arrogant.”

Pogrund has long been a critic of Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, describing the occupation of the West Bank as “tyrannical,” but has avoided using the word apartheid. He considers the term “a deadly word” that requires “intentionality” and “institutionalization.” That intentionality and institutionalization already exist in the occupied territories, and by annexing these areas, even deniers like Pogrund will no longer be able to refute the obvious.

“Come July 1, if we annex the Jordan Valley and the settlement areas, we are apartheid. Full stop. There’s no question about it,” Pogrund said.

Greek PM Travels to Israel to Talk Turkey, Tourism, Energy

Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, flanked by six ministers, touched down in Tel Aviv airport Tuesday morning for a high-level visit to Israel. 

The Greek PM’s first port of call was a meeting with his Israeli counterpart Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The pair discussed how to get Greek-Israeli tourism back on track post-COVID-19.  

After the meeting, Netanyahu announced Israel will aim to allow tourists to return from Greece and Cyprus to Israel without going through quarantine from August 1. The exact start date will, however, depend on the COVID-19 situation in the countries concerned.  

“Over a million Israelis go to Greece every year,” Netanyahu said in a press conference after the meeting on June 16. “This is an expression of Israelis’ love for Greece.”  

Ahead of the meeting, Mitsotakis said he was confident Israel-Greece flights would soon resume, and said in the press conference, “We are working hard to ensure tourists are safe.” 

Greece is heavily reliant on external visitation, with tourism accounting for approximately 25-30% of the country’s GDP, and is working to sell itself as a safe post-COVID-19 tourism destination.  

“A lot will depend on whether people feel comfortable to travel and whether we can project Greece as a safe destination,” Mitsotakis acknowledged. 

Tourism, annexation, and energy 

While there is no doubt Greece and Cyprus are top tourism destinations for Israeli travelers, it appears Netanyahu’s willingness to restart tourism is more about winning Greek support for its annexation plans currently causing friction with the European Union.  

The EU says Israel’s West Bank and Jordan Valley annexation plans cannot “pass unchallenged,” while the US accepts them under President Donald Trump’s “Deal of the Century” Middle East peace plan. 

“We expect Greece to be an anchor of support for us in the [European] Union,” Israel’s Ambassador to Athens, Yossi Amrani, told Israel’s Army Radio on Monday ahead of the Greek Prime Minister’s visit. 

Other diplomatic sources told the Jerusalem Post that Israel does not expect Greece to change its position on annexation, but may help to soften the EU’s attitude towards Israel and block proposed economic sanctions.  

“Greece is not militant and we expect them to help us,” the anonymous diplomatic source said. “We want the EU to have a dialogue with us and not sanctions or declarations threatening to punish us.”

In addition to annexation and the peace plan, Israel’s agenda for the fourth Israeli-Greek meeting includes “energy and the EastMed [gas pipeline]” and “stability in the Middle East with an emphasis on Iran and Lebanon,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Iris Ambor said on Monday. 

Greek priorities 

For his part, the Greek PM is keen to discuss Turkish aggression in the Mediterranean, which he labeled “blatant provocations.” 

“We discussed this matter extensively,” Mitsotakis told the media after his Tuesday morning meeting with Netanyahu. “We discussed the instability Turkey is causing, including in its actions in Libya.” 

Turkey is also a diplomatic thorn-in-the-side and security threat to Greek-Israeli-Cypriot energy cooperation on projects like the EastMed pipeline. 

In December 2019, Ankara concluded a maritime agreement with Libya’s Government of National Accord, which it backs militarily in the Libyan civil war, enabling it to lay claim to a massive swathe of the Eastern Mediterranean. The claim totally ignores established Greek and Cypriot territorial claims, but Turkey maintains the move is within its rights.   

Greece has vocally opposed long-time foe Turkey’s hostile territory grab and defended the EastMed cooperation, stating it “is not directed against nor exclusive of anyone.” 

“Turkey is welcome to give up on its imperialistic pipeline dreams and cooperate with us as an equal and law-abiding partners – not as the neighborhood bully,” Mitsotakis told Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth on Tuesday. 

The Greek delegation includes the ministers for defense, foreign affairs, tourism, energy, environmental protection and water, and development and investments.  

Israel’s Alternate Prime Minister and Defense Minister Benny Gantz and Greek contemporary Nikolaos Panagiotopoulos have been in talks over defense cooperation. Meanwhile, Israeli Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi and Greek FM Nikos Dendias signed off on agreements to increase cybersecurity, energy, agriculture, and tourism cooperation.

Read also: Israel’s Supreme Court Strikes Down Law to Legalize Settlements