UN Rights Chief: ‘Annexation is Illegal. Period.’

On June 26, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, released a statement denouncing Israeli annexation plans. Bachelet, the former president of Chile, voiced a strongly worded opinion on Israeli plans to use an unsigned peace deal as justification to annex 30% of the West Bank.

“Annexation is illegal. Period,” Bachelet stated. “Any annexation. Whether it is 30 percent of the West Bank, or 5 percent. I urge Israel to listen to its own former senior officials and generals, as well as to the multitude of voices around the world, warning it not to proceed along this dangerous path.” Annexation plans would not impact those living in the occupied territories alone, she emphasized.

Disastrous consequences

Bachelet said that “the precise consequences of annexation cannot be predicted, but they are likely to be disastrous for the Palestinians, for Israel itself, and for the wider region.” She recalled a June 23 statement by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres who called any form of Israeli annexation “devastating.” Bachelet said, “The Secretary-General of the United Nations has called on the Israeli Government to abandon its annexation plans, and I back that call one hundred percent.”

As UN Commissioner on Human Rights, Bachelet has a mandate to prevent human rights violations and promote international cooperation to ensure respect of human rights. She sees opposing Israeli annexation as part of that mandate as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan “is likely to entrench, perpetuate and further heighten serious human rights violations that have characterized the conflict for decades.”

Threat to human rights

Her statement, published by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), highlighted a likelihood that restrictions on Palestinian rights to freedom of movement would further deteriorate “as Palestinian population centers become enclaves.” The statement emphasized how annexation could ban locals from farming their land and reduce access to education and healthcare.

The OHCHR statement called Israel settlements in the occupied territories “a clear violation of international law” that would “almost certainly expand” should annexation proceed. Even a “modest” form of annexation would “grievously harm the prospect of a two-state solution,” undercut future negotiations, “and perpetuate the serious existing human rights and international humanitarian law violations we witness today.”

Bachelet’s office fears the annexation would lack any legal backing and would create an untenable position for Israeli diplomacy in the future. “The shockwaves of annexation will last for decades, and will be extremely damaging to Israel, as well as to the Palestinians,” Bachelet warned in her statement. “However there is still time to reverse this decision.”

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.

Fighting Continues in South Yemen Despite Ceasefire

Hours after a ceasefire agreement was reached on Monday, June 22, fighting reportedly intensified in southern Yemen between the internationally-recognized government and Southern Transitional Council (STC) forces. The nominal allies traded cannon and mortar fire, both claiming they were responding to enemy fire and accusing the other of escalating tensions in contravention of the new truce agreement. 

According to STC spokesman Nizar Haytham, STC forces responded in self-defense to a major government offensive on the separatists’ positions in Sheikh Salem village, located in the Al-Taryia region of Abyan governorate in southern Yemen.

“They (government forces) launched a big offensive from Shouqra, hours after agreeing to the truce. We are committed to the truce and implementing the Riyadh Agreement as long as the government abides by it,” Haytham told Arab News on Wednesday.

“We also affirm our legitimate right to defend ourselves against these serious threats and violations, and we salute the perseverance and persistence of our heroic southern forces on all fronts of the fighting,” Haitham tweeted a day earlier. 

Meanwhile, an anonymous government source said the military, responding to STC and artillery fire on its positions east of the regional capital Zinjibar, hit back, successfully taking control of Al-Taryia. 

“Fighting has not stopped for even one hour since the truce was announced,” the army officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Arab News. 

Another military source told Turkish state-run news outlet Anadolu Agency “dozens” of STC militia were killed in the clashes on Tuesday, but failed to give any exact casualty figures.  

On Monday, Saudi-led coalition spokesman Turki Al-Malki announced the STC and Yemeni government had reached a ceasefire agreement. The two parties welcomed the new truce as did the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom. Many hoped it would help de-escalate Yemen’s “civil war within a civil war,” but Tuesday’s fighting has deflated such hopes. 

Finding unity difficult 

Saudi ceasefire observers arrived in the Abyan today amid calls from the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres for a nation-wide truce and north-south reunification. Guterres told the Associated Press that, although Yemeni’s have “always had difficulties in finding unity among themselves,” they deserve peace.

The secretary-general said the international community needs to put more pressure on conflict parties to turn progress on confidence-building measures like port and airport access into the “beginning of a political process.”

“I’m still confident that that is possible,” Guterres said on Wednesday. “We need to put all pressure on the parties to the conflict and all relevant actors in order to make sure that the intense discussions that we have had in this regard lead to a positive outcome.”

The STC separatists, backed by the UAE since 2015, are seeking a return to independence from the rest of the country, which they joined in 1990. Taking advantage of escalating clashes with Houthi militia in the north, the secessionist council took control of the government capital Aden and southern provinces in August 2019.

Saudi Arabia brokered a truce between the supposed coalition partners in November 2019, known as the Riyadh Agreement, but in April 2020, the STC  declared self-rule. In-fighting escalated prior to the latest ceasefire agreement, culminating with the STC takeover of the strategically-located Socotra island over the weekend. 

Read also: Yemen Government Signs Ceasefire with STC