“A group of Palestinians from the occupied West Bank submitted a complaint on Tuesday to the International Criminal Court (ICC), requesting an investigation into senior Israeli and US officials who authorised Donald Trump’s ‘Peace to Prosperity’ plan. William Schabas, a professor of international law at the UK’s Middlesex University, filed the complaint on behalf of his clients citing Israel’s plans to unilaterally and illegally annex up to a third of the West Bank, a scheme that gained traction after Trump’s plan was launched in January. Schabas asked the ICC’s prosecutor to probe the acts of Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and architect of the scheme commonly known as the “deal of the century”. In a statement, Schabas said ‘there is credible evidence’ that Trump, Pompeo and Kushner ‘are complicit in acts that may amount to war crimes relating to the transfer of populations into occupied territory and the annexation of the sovereign territory of the State of Palestine’.”

“The Hamas terror group fired a volley of rockets into the sea early Wednesday in a warning to Israel not to annex parts of the West Bank, sources in the organization told AFP. The showcase launch of about 20 test rockets from the coastal Palestinian territory came as thousands of people in Gaza City answered Hamas calls for street protests.”

“Palestinians participated in a ‘“day of rage’ in Gaza and the West Bank on Wednesday in protest of Israel’s planned annexation of parts of the West Bank. Hamas and other Palestinian factions had called for demonstrations Wednesday in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem in response to the anticipated announcement on Wednesday of an Israeli plan to apply its sovereignty to settlements…’The resistance will topple our enemy’s ploy to divide our homeland,’ Hamas spokesperson Hazim Qasim said in a statement preceding the protests. Unlike the Great March of Return protests in 2019, Wednesday’s protests in Gaza did not direct demonstrators towards the border fence with Israel or seek conflict with Israeli forces.” Also See – “Israel’s annexation plans: Palestinians stage day of protests“ (Middle East Eye)

“Annexation will reveal that creating two states has long been a charade to cover up land expropriation and informal annexation that have created a one-state reality on the ground. Many observers say that annexation, which effectively institutionalizes a formal apartheid regime in which one ethnic group disenfranchises and rules over another, is a logical consequence of the 2018 nation-state law. ‘The idea of separation now is not a separation of two entities on territorial grounds—it’s based on ethnic grounds,’ said Raef Zreik, an associate professor of law at Ono Academic College and a co-director of the Minerva Center for the Humanities at Tel Aviv University. ‘The Israeli nation-state law … and the annexation [are] not two separate plans, but two plans that feed on the same rationale, [which] is that between the river and the sea, there are two groups of people and there is a superiority of the Jewish people over the Palestinian people.’ The two-state solution is now dead, but what emerges in the short term will be far uglier: one state that cements Jewish supremacy over Palestinians. It will not be the binational state that many Palestinians envisioned but instead a codified form of apartheid in which Palestinian life is increasingly constrained, defined by high-tech restrictions and surveillance, such as phone monitoring and biometric data collection.”

“Past experience shows us that Israeli annexation, not unprecedented as it is, should not be viewed in isolation but as part of a wider settler-colonial endeavor, which constitutes the modus operandi of Israeli apartheid over the Palestinian people. Recognizing Israel’s commission of the crime of apartheid is the first step in addressing the root causes of Palestinian oppression. International criminal law enshrines apartheid as a crime against humanity in Article 7(1)(j) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Rome Statute defines the crime of apartheid as ‘inhumane acts … committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime’.”

“While the level of suffering there is unprecedented, Gaza should not be exceptionalized, Baconi argues. ‘The Gaza Strip is simply an extreme version of Area A [the West Bank enclaves under full Palestinian control]. It’s an extreme version of Kufr ‘Aqab [in East Jerusalem]. It’s an extreme version of Umm al-Fahm [a Palestinian city in Israel], in the sense that what we have throughout this land is a process of Israeli control of territories surrounding Palestinian bubbles.’ While the end-goal of that policy may be unknown, the strategy of confining Palestinians to urban silos and minimizing movement between them is ‘classic divide and rule — it’s 101 of colonialism,’ says Baconi…Israel’s permit regime and separation policy are thus far from a unique invention; ‘It’s a very colonial and imperial way to subdue populations,” explains Berda. Still, she adds, Israel has taken that colonial repertoire “to an extreme, because it is the most sophisticated population management system in the world right now.’ For Baconi, annexation cannot be understood separately from the Gaza blockade, which in turn cannot be disconnected from the practices affecting Palestinian refugees and citizens of Israel. ‘These are all policies aimed at ensuring the least number of Palestinians are in the land, the most land is controlled by the Israelis, and that there’s a framework put in place to ensure a Jewish supremacist state,’ he says.”

“Speaking on Israel’s Army Radio station, Cabinet minister Ofir Akunis confirmed that the annexation process would not begin on Wednesday, saying that officials were still working out the final details with their American counterparts. He said he expected the annexation to take place later in July. ;Coordination with the American administration is not something that can be dismissed,’ he said…U.S. officials have said they do not want to move forward with a plan unless the two leaders are in agreement. Israeli media also reported that Israel is seeking changes in a proposed U.S. map for annexation, and that American officials are demanding an Israeli gesture to the Palestinians as compensation for any annexation that takes place. Dovish Israeli groups have been holding street protests against the annexation plan and it has also encountered surprising opposition from some of the West Bank settlers themselves, who fear having to recognize a de facto Palestinian state and find themselves engulfed in isolated enclaves. The majority of them, however, are pressuring Netanyahu to follow through, launching a campaign titled, ‘you made a promise — keep it’.”

“The map differs from previous versions in that it expands access to far-out settlements, thereby turning them from isolated enclaves into areas connected to the larger settlement blocs by wide swaths of land, the outlet reports. The map also shows Arab cities inside Israel, such as Umm al Fahm, being included in the Palestinian entity, an extremely controversial move that Israeli leaders disavowed after it was included in the Trump administration’s peace plan.”

“Speaking to Army Radio, Foreign Minister says questions regarding plan to extended Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank ‘should be referred to PM’ in signs of continued disagreement within coalition over initiative.”

“‘Stop talking and start doing. There will always be an excuse why not to do it,’ he added, admitting that he expected the fateful date to pass without a major announcement from Netanyahu. Elhayani and Dagan are the leading figures in a plurality of the 24 settler mayors who have advocated in favor of Israel annexing large parts of the West Bank, but adamantly oppose doing so in the context of the Trump peace plan, because it envisions reserving the remaining territory for a future Palestinian state.”

“Settlement leaders even spoke about July 15 as the “expiration” date for the annexation plan. Yisrael Gantz, head of the Mateh Binyamin regional council, which encompasses 46 Israeli settlements and outposts north of Jerusalem, between the Green Line and Jericho, noted the significance of the presidential election campaign leading up to Election Day on November 3. ‘In the three months prior to the election, the United States will not do anything dramatic,’ he posited.”

“However, the argument between Netanyahu and Gantz about timing is designed to conceal the real dispute about the annexation itself. The reason why this dispute is not publicized is that opposition to annexation is seen as a left-wing stance, and both parties, each for his own reasons, are not interested in being labeled ‘leftists.’ That is the high price of the process of delegitimization that the left wing has undergone in recent years. Instead of conducting a basic and incisive discussion about a crucial issue, the only thing possible in Israel’s shrinking democratic space is a petty argument about timing. Netanyahu is caught in a catch-22 that he can’t admit. Even if he doesn’t want annexation, the fact that the U.S. administration has removed its opposition to it has led to the collapse of the systems of checks and balances that enabled him to play a double game with the settlers. Now he is trying to maneuver his way down – in a clumsy and confused manner – from the tall tree he climbed to safe ground.”

“Lawmakers from the Yisrael Beytenu party, including party chairman and former Defense Minister MK Avidgor Liberman, visited the illegal Bedouin town of Khan al-Akhmar, east of Jerusalem, Wednesday morning. During the tour, Liberman denounced Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for failing to carry out his promise to evacuate the illegal encampment. ‘We’re meeting here at Khan al-Akhmar because this is part of the same pattern of behavior. For fourteen months, Netanyahu has been yelling about ‘sovereignty’, and the whole time he’s cheated his voters’.”

“Those who support Israeli sovereignty are starting to get antsy. There will always be persuasive reasons for why initiative should not be taken, especially when the initiative is a daring one. But Israeli history has shown that daring steps have always led to positive outcomes, whereas hesitancy and fears have led to bad results and sometimes to disasters. There is no sense in speaking at length about the historic opportunity that might pass us by. Defense Minister Benny Gantz’s idea that sovereignty should be discussed when the coronavirus crisis is over is a poor one. This window of opportunity starts today and ends in November, when the US will hold a presidential election. This historic window of opportunity allows us to take a bold diplomatic step and apply Israeli law to a few vital areas west of Jordan.”

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday that discussions with the US on his plan to annex ‎occupied West Bank territory would continue ‘in the coming days,’ indicating he would miss the July 1 ‎target date for beginning the controversial process.‎ Netanyahu made the comments shortly after wrapping up talks with White House envoy Avi ‎Berkowitz and US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman. The sides have been holding talks for several ‎months on finalizing a map spelling out which areas of Judea and Samaria will come under Israeli ‎sovereignty.”

“A new position paper released today by Gisha, Area G: From Separation to Annexation, reviews and analyzes Israel’s ‘separation policy,’ implemented as a means of deliberately isolating Gaza (Area G) physically, economically, and socially, and of dividing Palestinians through sweeping restrictions on movement. Alongside the settlement project in the West Bank, the separation policy has been used by Israel to advance political-demographic goals that cannot be justified on ‘security grounds:’ Reducing the number of Palestinians living in the West Bank, weakening Palestinian institutions that would underpin a state, and advancing annexation at the expense of fundamental human rights.”

“The Trump administration is reportedly pushing Israel to offer the Palestinians some sort of compensation in exchange for the unilateral annexation of some of the West Bank land they want for their future state. Among the ideas is transferring an area to the Palestinians where they can build without limits, or redefining some Area C lands, where Israel maintains full control, as Area B, where Palestinians have civil control, Channel 12 reported Tuesday. Meanwhile, the Kan public broadcaster reported that Israeli officials have passed along to the White House a slightly edited version of the Trump peace plan’s conceptual map that better connects a group of at least 15 isolated settlements to the rest of the West Bank territory the proposal envisions Israel annexing.”

“Sanders is one of a dozen Democratic lawmakers, and the only one from the Senate, to join the letter, which has drawn strong denunciation from AIPAC on Monday. The letter is different in content and tone from a more moderate anti-annexation letter that was released earlier this month and signed by over 190 Democratic members of the House of Representatives. That letter explained opposition to annexation mostly through pro-Israeli arguments, and was signed by several high-ranking Democrats who are considered strong supporters of Israel and close allies of AIPAC, such as Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL) and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD).”

“More than 1,000 former and current members of J Street U, the youth wing of the liberal, pro-Israel organization J Street, are calling on the group’s leadership to get behind a legislative effort to condition funding of the state of Israel if it goes forward with illegally annexing Palestinian territory, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has threatened to do. The J Street U members, along with former staff, have signed on to a letter to the group’s leadership which describes the response to Israel’s impending annexation as ‘a decisive test for the progressive movement.’ The alumni who signed the letter include 28 former J Street U staffers, over a dozen rabbis and rabbinical students, former Obama White House staffers, and congressional and campaign staffers. ‘Israel’s leaders are proceeding with annexation because they expect no real consequence for doing so,’ the letter reads. ‘Now, as they threaten to make that control permanent, most American leaders and institutions have expressed outrage, but few have indicated that moving forward will result in material consequences: a tangible erosion of American monetary support. We ask J Street to stand in strong support of any legislation that will reduce American assistance to Israel if it decides, once and for all, to annex the West Bank,’ it concludes.”

“For Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a New York Democrat, the announcement was routine, noting the inclusion of $500 million for Israel’s missile defense in a key defense funding bill. But it was significant as well in its timing, demonstrating that the party’s mainstream remains committed to funding for Israel’s military at a time that some of its progressive members are calling for cuts.”

“The ban on annexation was not invented to irritate Israel, but to help the world: it has contributed to a remarkable decline in conventional warfare and by some measures, a decline in conflict at large. Legal acrobatics in support of a land grab should end, and annexation proponents must be truthful: their desire to own the land in perpetuity overrides fundamental moral and legal obligations as a member of the community of nations. Those obligations are the cornerstones of international peace and security—as well as basic human decency.”

“Thus a window exists from July 1 to November 2 (or January 20), during which U.S. policy officially encourages annexation, without any countervailing statement from the likely next president. Would that make a difference? Almost certainly it would, as shown by the record of the Obama administration…Such a statement by Biden would set out a marker that would undercut more radical currents both within and outside the Democratic party that demand a wholesale revision of American support for Israel.”

“I have long served in leadership positions in the American Jewish community, and this moment is unprecedented: Annexation would fundamentally alter our community’s relationship with Israel. As an American Jew deeply invested in democracy and equality, and who continues to believe in the importance of Israel as the ancestral and modern-day homeland for the Jewish people, this moment requires the American Jewish community to take action or risk losing younger Jews for good. “

“Netanyahu is not the lone architect of this grim situation. For almost three decades, the absence of strong leaders on both sides; the profound suspicion and mistrust between the sides; the historical traumas of colliding narratives; the extreme difficulty of the issues themselves (including Jerusalem, refugees, Israeli settlements, and Palestinian terror); the ineffectiveness of U.S. mediation; and the inertia of a status quo that was deemed much less risky than uncertain change have both defined the landscape and prevented the parties from reaching common ground. But having done his utmost to kill the two-state solution for most of the past decade, Netanyahu now waits, shovel in hand, to bury it.”

“Indeed, the alarm in Washington has been loudest among Israel’s traditional defenders. They argue against annexation on pragmatic, policy terms, recognizing that the current status quo of ironclad Israeli control over Palestinian territory and relative global quiescence over an indefinite military occupation suits both Israeli and U.S. interests — more so, at least, than a unilateral move that will provoke a backlash from Palestinians and governments elsewhere. But critics on the Israeli left argue that the case against annexation ought to be one of morality, not tactics. ‘During the era of slavery in the United States, and apartheid in South Africa, there were those who profited from the social order that was enshrined in law at the time,’ wrote Yehuda Shaul, one of the founders of Breaking the Silence, an organization of former Israeli soldiers who speak out against the abuses of the occupation. ‘A fair person isn’t interested in having the society in which he lives imitate their ways,’ he added. ‘Anyone living in a country that was founded as a result of a U.N. resolution, one based on the right to self-determination, would have to betray himself to deny the native people who live alongside us that very same right’.”

“On the last day of June, Hagit Ofran was where she has often been in her 25 years as an Israeli peace activist, protesting on a Jerusalem street. There were only hours to go before the Israeli government might — or might not — announce a plan to formally annex nearly a third of the occupied West Bank, a potentially momentous inflection point in the conflict that Ofran has devoted more than half of her life to resolving. It was nearly July 1, and she had no idea what to expect. ‘We don’t even know how they would do it — by cabinet resolution, by Knesset legislation — nothing is clear,’ said Ofran, a longtime staffer of the venerable activist group Peace Now, as she stood outside a Jerusalem courthouse protesting a case of land confiscation against a Palestinian family, the kind of case she predicts would become more common if Israel extended its sovereignty in the West Bank. ‘There is no plan, so there is nothing to fight’.”

“By ignoring this fact and leveraging the otherwise legitimate concerns of both Israelis and Americans about the many longstanding threats to Israeli security, annexationists seek to hold onto the Jordan Valley in order to thwart the establishment of a future Palestinian state. Put another way, fearmongering over the necessity of unilateral annexation of the Jordan Valley is aimed at an Israeli territorial envelopment that would strip Palestinians of land crucial to the development of an independent state of their own. As IDF Major General (ret.) Shlomo Gazit told Haaretz, ‘the Palestinians need [the] Jordan Valley to develop as a viable state, especially if they want to absorb refugees.’ Indeed, proponents of Jordan Valley annexation use these manipulative tactics to advance an ideological ‘Greater Israel’ agenda. Similarly pernicious is the claim that anything short of giving Israel carte blanche with regard to the status of the Jordan Valley amounts to purposeful neglect of Israeli security. Former Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Olmert, who negotiated extensively with the Palestinians on mutual security issues, told Israeli TV Channel 12: ‘The claim that we need the Jordan Valley now from a security standpoint is nonsense with no truth to it. I’m saying that as a prime minister of Israel. No one will say that I’m not a patriot,’ Olmert contended.”

“…it is with sadness that I have followed the proposals to annex Palestinian territory. As a life-long friend, admirer and supporter of Israel, I am fearful that these proposals will fail in their objective of securing Israel’s borders and will be contrary to Israel’s own long-term interests. Annexation would put in jeopardy the progress that Israel has made in improving relationships with the Arab and Muslim world. I have never been more convinced that Israel’s interests overlap with those of our closest partners in the Arab world, including potential security cooperation against shared threats.”

“‘Formal annexation really has the potential to radically alter the situation on the ground, even though de facto annexation has been happening for decades,’ Elgindy says.”

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday night launched a scathing, unprecedented attack against Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, whom he appointed and who served previously as his chief of staff, accusing him of being part of a deep-state conspiracy scheme aiming to oust him for political reasons. Netanyahu was slammed by his rivals over the accusations, which he made in a series of tweets and retweets, and a watchdog said it would file a police complaint for incitement. Mandelblit earlier in the day told the Permits Committee at the State Comptroller’s Office that he opposed Netanyahu’s request to receive some NIS 10 million ($2.9 million) in outside funding for his legal defense in his corruption trial, saying the donation was tantamount to an illicit gift.”

“Gantz finds himself in a Catch-22. He has already been sworn in as Israel’s next premier, positioned alongside Netanyahu in the government leadership. If he wants to step into Netanyahu’s shoes, he cannot give him any excuse to renege on their rotation deal. However, the policies he has adopted to appease Netanyahu have been a polling disaster. He has to distinguish himself from Netanyahu, challenge his policies and record achievements. He has avoided doing so to ensure the November 2021 handover. When he drops down to five seats in the 120-member Knesset, Netanyahu will tell his Likud supporters and the Israeli public at large that it makes no sense to hand the premiership over to a man who enjoys such paltry public support. Gantz could end up not only humiliated by Netanyahu and losing his credibility and voters, but could also find himself dumped.”

“According to Health Ministry data, Jerusalem saw almost 120 cases over the last day; Ashdod saw 94 cases since Tuesday morning, up to 764 from 670; Bnei Brak recorded just over 50 cases; and Tel Aviv increased its tally by 46. Dr. Erez Onn, head of the hospital division at the Health Ministry, said Wednesday that there were increasing numbers of patients hospitalized.”

“Israel and the West Bank are dealing with a renewed outbreak of the coronavirus, leading to proposals and measures intended to curb its spread and mitigate the economic ramifications of the crisis by both the Israeli and the Palestinian authorities. 25,244 people in Israel have so far tested positive for the coronavirus; 320 people have died. In the West Bank, 2,116 people tested positive; 10 people have died. There are currently 12 serious cases, with two on ventilators. In the Gaza Strip, 72 people were diagnosed and one person has died. “

“Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh announced new restrictions in the West Bank, including a five-day lockdown in the Hebron District and a 48-hour curfew in the Nablus District, following a rise in new coronavirus cases. Most gatherings will be banned, including weddings, graduation parties and conferences, and funerals will be limited in size. According to Shtayyeh, cases rose after many restrictions were lifted because people haven’t been abiding by the regulations issued by the government. He also said many new cases originate from Palestinian workers or patients who went into Israel and then returned to the West Bank. ‘I call all of our brothers within the Green Line not to enter the West Bank at all for 14 days’ he said”

“As of Tuesday afternoon, there were 2,698 cases of coronavirus in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, including an increase of 255 new cases confirmed since Monday, according to Palestinian Authority government spokesperson Ibrahim Milhim. The current wave of the novel coronavirus has spread across the West Bank, with large spikes in Nablus, Hebron, Bethlehem and Ramallah. Nine Palestinians have died from COVID-19, including a 44-year-old Hebron resident on Tuesday. Five east Jerusalem residents have died.”

“The semiautonomous Palestinian government in the Israeli-occupied West Bank does not control any airport or border. It must coordinate travel with Israel, usually via neighboring Egypt or Jordan, which closed crossings and restricted borders in March and prioritized seats on flights for their own citizens. Coronavirus-related travel restrictions have stranded people around the world. Many residents of African countries have struggled to get home, with flights to their countries still cut off. But as a Palestinian traveling on documents issued by an entity that’s not officially a state, Bader’s predicament, and that of others in similar situations, sits at a particular nexus of international politics and the pandemic.”