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.

Sudan, Egypt Push for Diplomatic Solution to GERD Dispute

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi said his country is fully committed to finding a diplomatic solution to the political impasse of the filling of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) on Saturday, June 20. 

El-Sisi’s latest comments come a day after he called on the UN Security Council to intervene and help restart talks between Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia, which started on June 9 and stalled again on Wednesday, June 17. 

The $4 billion hydroelectric dam promises to bring untold development opportunities to Ethiopia but is seen as a major threat to human, food, and primarily water security in neighboring and downstream countries Egypt and Sudan. Dam talks failed in February, and there is a renewed focus on the issue since Addis Abba threatened to go ahead with filling the mega-reservoir in July, regardless of whether an agreement can be reached.

“For us, it is not mandatory to reach an agreement before starting filling the dam, hence, we will commence the filling process in the coming rainy season,” Ethiopian Foreign Minister Gedu Andargachew said in an interview with the Associated Press (AP News) on June 19.  

“We are working hard to reach a deal, but still we will go ahead with our schedule whatever the outcome is. If we have to wait for others’ blessing, then the dam may remain idle for years, which we won’t allow to happen,” Gebu added.

For Egypt, which receives almost all its fresh water from the Nile, Ethiopia filling the dam before it secures a legal agreement ensuring minimum flows and dispute resolution is a matter of state survival.  

In his Saturday speech, el-Sisi said that referring the issue to the UN Security Council demonstrated Egypt’s goodwill and desire to “pursue diplomacy until the very last chance to resolve the crisis.” The location for the address — an airforce base — and his recent promise to send troops into Libya if the Sirte-Jufra “red-line” is crossed sends a stronger message. 

“We have set a rule for each of us: There should be neither harm nor malice, and I hope the Ethiopian people and their leadership will understand this message,” el-Sisi said.

 The Egyptian president reiterated that all states’ interests needed to be taken into account, but Ethiopia also needs to respect Egypt’s need for “life.”

“We need to move strongly towards concluding the negotiations and reach an agreement … and solutions that achieve the interest of all,” he said. 

Meanwhile, in a separate Saturday night statement, Sudanese Foreign Minister Asma Mohamed Abdalla said “recent rounds of negotiations on the Renaissance Dam have achieved a tangible progress in technical issues.” 

Abdalla said progress achieved during the latest round of negotiations was encouraging, and as a result, she believes the three countries can arrive at a diplomatic solution without external involvement from the UN, as el-Sisi has suggested. She also thanked South Africa, the United States, and the European Union for their roles as observers during multiple rounds of GERD negotiations. 

The Sudanese minister said that despite Wednesday’s progress, there are still differences “on some fundamental legal issues.” As a result, it “necessitated referring the file to the prime ministers of the three countries with the aim to reaching a political consensus that would lead to the resumption and completion of negotiations as soon as possible.”

Read also: Egypt Seeks EU Support to Break Arab-African Balance in GERD Standoff