In both Israel and the US, picture on West Bank annexation remains unclear

July 1st – designated in the Israeli government’s coalition agreement as the date from which annexation measures can be voted on – arrived without any Israeli decision on the matter. Regional Cooperation Minister Ofir Akunis said that “disagreements” with the US were currently preventing any action or announcement. After meeting with US officials the previous day, PM Netanyahu said that “we will continue to work on [the issue of annexation] in the coming days.” 

Elsewhere in Washington, DC, numerous Democratic lawmakers issued letters and statements in June opposing Israeli annexation. The most significant was a joint statement from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer along with Senators Bob Menendez and Ben Cardin (the top Democrats in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee), all considered strong supporters of Israel. With Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden already publicly opposed to annexation and the Democratic convention less than two months away, the matter is set to be a prime foreign policy issue during the US election campaign.

There was also continued division on annexation within the Israeli government through much of June, with Defense Minister Gantz sending a variety of signals. He reportedly ordered the IDF to prepare for increased violence, and said that Israel won’t “wait around forever for the Palestinians” to negotiate. Yet, Gantz also said that he would only back annexation of the Jordan Valley (an option reportedly ruled out by FM Ashkenazi) if it was supported by the Arab states and the US, and claimed that Israel would only annex areas without “many Palestinians.” On July 29, in a meeting with the Trump administration’s Avi Berkowitz, Gantz cautioned that July 1st was “not a sacred date” and asserted that “the coronavirus and its socioeconomic and health consequences is the more pressing issue that needs to be attended to right now.”

The latter comment prompted a rebuke from PM Netanyahu, who said that “the matter is not up to Blue and White, they are not a factor either way.” Netanyahu had previously emphasized that he would seek to annex all Israeli settlements on July 1st while indicating that implementation of any further moves would be delayed. Netanyahu also faced strong opposition from a group of settler leaders, led by the head of the Yesha Council. Meanwhile, IDF Chief of Staff Aviv Kochavi alerted troops on June 23rd that “you can find yourself in a few weeks in the Judea and Samaria area because of riots and terror” and added that the violence could spread to Gaza. According to David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), “intelligence officials in the Shin Bet have quietly assessed the various downsides to annexation, and if these views filter into the public discourse, then Gantz and Ashkenazi’s Blue and White Party will be bolstered [in pushing back on annexation].”

Already, a poll released by the Geneva Initiative on June 6th showed that almost 42% of the Israeli public oppose annexation (with less than 33% in favor). The poll also showed that only 3.5% of Israelis consider annexation to be a top priority. A subsequent poll by Israel’s Channel 12 similarly found that 46% of Israelis opposed annexation. On June 29th, a survey from Hebrew University and aChord showed opposition to annexation among Israelis at 69%. Moreover, efforts to fight annexation were ramped up within Israeli civil society during June. Various organizations mounted public information campaigns (including videos on various platforms) and staged multiple protest rallies.

These developments increased the Israeli civil society parameter from 7 to 8. All other relevant parameters remained the same in June.

International and regional efforts to oppose annexation continue

In June, regional efforts against potential Israeli annexation were again spearheaded by Jordan, which has reportedly considered cancelling the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty in response. On June 16th, King Abdullah personally lobbied a number of US lawmakers on the issue. It was subsequently reported that Jordan would respond harshly to any Israeli annexation of the West Bank, not simply to a measure that included the Jordan Valley. Meanwhile, Jordanian FM Ayman Safadi said that annexation poses an “unprecedented danger” and Jordanian ambassador to Israel Ghassan Majali warned that he could be recalled. Similar messages were relayed in a meeting of the heads of the GI-Two-State Coalition with the Jordanian ambassador on June 24th.

However, the extent of any potential Jordanian response to annexation remains unclear. “King Abdullah must balance this opposition with important strategic interests, from security links and water/gas projects with Israel to the bilateral relationship with Washington,” according to al-Omari. “Yet if annexation does occur, Amman will almost surely downgrade diplomatic relations with Israel, freeze nonessential civilian relations, and help Saudi Arabia build an Arab coalition that seeks to impose costs on Israel by reaching out to Europe and international organizations.”

Seeking to relay a similar message to the Israeli public, UAE ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba published an op-ed in the Israeli press on July 12th that termed annexation “illegal”, stated that it would undermine Israel’s growing relations with Arab Gulf states, and described how these relations could be expanded if annexation were abandoned. Otaiba received Palestinian criticism for having made clear that normalization with Israel could continue in full force as long as the status quo is maintained. The effect of the op-ed was also off-set by a senior UAE official’s call for increased cooperation with Israel.

Yoel Guzansky, senior researcher at INSS, assessed that “Gulf leaders fear that their status in the Arab world will suffer and that public unrest will undermine the stability of their regimes if they fail to express resolute opposition to annexation.” Guzansky described the UAE’s actions as being “consistent with the duality that has characterized the Gulf interaction with Israel for many years. This duality also reflects the aspirations of the Gulf states to maintain good relations with Washington, especially in light of the threat they face from Iran … annexation, even if it is carried out, is not expected to erode the quiet security cooperation significantly.”

At the international level, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres continued to push back on annexation. For its part, the EU struggled to find a unified approach, but EU High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell made clear that there would be “significant consequences” for the EU-Israel relationship if annexation is implemented. While sanctions appear unlikely, the EU could move to cut Israel off from a scientific research grants program from which it has received over 1 billion euros in funding, and some states reportedly may recognize a Palestinian state. Furthermore, a letter opposing annexation and signed by 1,080 parliamentarians from 25 European countries was delivered to European foreign ministries on June 24th. On July 1st, British PM Boris Johnson published an op-ed in Hebrew arguing against such a move.

With regional actors and the international community awaiting an Israeli decision on annexation before taking any concrete actions, all relevant parameters remained in place.

High Court strikes down law legalizing settlements on private Palestinian land

On June 9th, the Israeli High Court ruled that a 2017 law allowing for the legalization of Israeli settlement homes on private Palestinian land was unconstitutional. The law, which had never been used and was frozen since 2018 pending the court’s decision, would have retroactively legalized 4,000 settler homes and allowed for further construction on expropriated land. It would also have allowed for the expropriation of about 8,183 dunams (2,046 acres) of private Palestinian land and the legalization of 55 outposts, according to Peace Now.

The ruling clarifies that the role of legislator in the West Bank is held by the military commander, not the Knesset. It also establishes a number of precedents: the right to equality of both Israelis and Palestinians, that expropriation of land must be for public purposes, and that Israeli settlers should not be considered a “local population” (which would theoretically allow for expropriation). The Likud party responded to the ruling by vowing to pass similar legislation in the near future, while Justice Minister Avi Nissenkorn of Blue and White said that the ruling should be respected, but added that settlement homes could be legalized “in an informed way and with wide agreement.”

The court’s decision, having significantly set back the effort to expropriate private Palestinian land and legalize settlements, moved the relevant parameter up from 3 to 5.