As anticipated, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu postponed Israel’s annexation plan, for someday apparently, on the pretext of ending his consultations with an American delegation. His choice was not made recognized for sure to his Foreign Minister, retired General Gabi Ashkenazi, who informed Israel’s Army Radio: “It seems unlikely to me that this will happen today [1 July]. I reckon there will be nothing today, regarding [the extension of Israeli] sovereignty.”
Although Ashkenazi is a minister in a authorities led by Netanyahu, he spoke about the date of the deliberate annexation as a member of the Blue and White Party, a coalition companion led by one other former normal, Defence Minister Benny Gantz. While Ashkenazi didn’t present a clear rationalization for the postponement of the annexation, Gantz didn’t hesitate, beginning with the struggle towards the coronavirus pandemic. He identified that 1 July was neither sacred nor set in stone as the official annexation date, as a result of the unity authorities is split with a number of heads.
The postponement was no nice shock or the product of a explicit variable. It was imposed by the mounting strain and concern inside Israel and Washington, which pressed for the formation of the unity authorities. The US can also be afraid of an outbreak of protests in the occupied Palestinian territories and, certainly, throughout the area, as a results of the Israeli annexation plan. The Trump administration’s issues have grown with the unfold of the coronavirus and the rising pressure with Iran in mild of the Caesar Act’s penalties for Syria. More necessary has been the worldwide and particularly European opposition to the Israeli transfer; UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres drew consideration repeatedly to the illegality of the annexation and its menace to regional stability and, as the 1 July implementation date approached, a clearer worldwide place grew to become evident.
READ: British diplomacy defends Israel and legitimises annexation
“An annexation decision could not be left without consequences,” Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian informed the French Parliament. “We are examining different options at a national level and also in coordination with our main European partners.”
Britain’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson addressed Israel’s leaders lovingly, as common, however stated: “I profoundly hope that annexation does not go ahead. If it does, the UK will not recognise any changes to the 1967 lines, except those agreed between both parties.” Labour opposition chief Sir Keir Starmer expressed a firmer place, warning towards the Israeli transfer and speaking about doable sanctions.
These warnings set out new parameters; they aren’t what Netanyahu anticipated to listen to, so he might isolate his nation from Europe and easily use Israel’s navy superiority to impose its will on the Palestinians, utilizing the annexation and Israeli sovereignty to offer himself a fig leaf of legitimacy to behave as he sees match. The step is paying homage to main revolutions resembling occurred in Algeria when France did not implement its guarantees made after the Second World War. Those guarantees had been just like the ensures and guarantees made to the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) following the signing of the Oslo Accords which haven’t been carried out.
The political and safety tracks of Netanyahu’s annexation plan collided with many information and realities in occupied Palestine, the area and the world, regardless of his efforts to bypass them by selling normalisation with the Gulf states and suggesting partial or gradual annexation, culminating along with his “discussions with the Americans” as an excuse to postpone the implementation date. None of his efforts have prevented escalations in the occupied Palestinian territories in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, they usually haven’t stopped the new path from taking form.
READ: Pessimistic Israeli situations relating to the safety scenario with the Palestinians
International reactions continued to snowball yesterday, as the postponement didn’t encourage any elementary adjustments in them. Israel was met with a Palestinian counterstrategy based mostly on escalation, confrontation and maximisation of the worldwide and regional strain. This might open the door to a new situation that surpasses the depressing propositions of Netanyahu and a few Zionist analysis centres which envisage getting annexation and normalisation carried out and out of the manner earlier than the US presidential election in November with out main penalties in the area.
The Israeli annexation plan has charted a new path for the conflict and opened the door to new situations, safety and political potentialities. The first could possibly be the collapse of Israel’s unity authorities. If the annexation venture could be thwarted, we might see extra political, navy and authorized achievements in the face of the Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. These might have repercussions past the US election and have an effect on alliances and ongoing conflicts in the area.
This article first appeared in Arabic in Al-Araby Al-Jadeed on 2 July 2020
The views expressed on this article belong to the writer and don’t essentially mirror the editorial coverage of Middle East Monitor.