Why annexation is a big deal

This is B'tselem's map of Area C  (in red),  the figures might no longer be accurate. 

I made a silent vow that this renewed phase of Tel Aviv Rooftop would keep politics to the absolute minimum. I'm breaking it so soon because annexation is in the air. And annexation is a big deal. 

The annexation in question is that of Area C of the West Bank, which the Oslo accords placed under full Israeli military and civil control but which international law deems "occupied territory". Area C comprises 62% of the land, all of the Israeli settlements and, depending on who you ask, between 80,000 and almost 300,000 Palestinians.  Placing Area C under Israeli sovereignty would leave almost 3 million additional West Bank Palestinians stranded in Areas A and B  - an archipelago of disconnected towns and villages.  Israel might offer the Palestinian Authority a kind of Bantustan 'autonomy' in these islands but, even in the extremely unlikely event that they would accept it, the annexation of Area C would undoubtedly mean the end of the "two state solution", the end of the Palestinian ambitions for their own state and the end of Israel as we know it. 

The argument that under a so-called "one state solution" Israel would be neither democractic nor Jewish has been repeated endlessly.  Netanyahu himself has stated that he is against Israel becoming "bi-national" (a euphemism for one state). But what might that mean in practice?

Imagine this situation: Some four million Palestinians (West Bank + "Israeli Arabs") are irrevocably under Israeli control with no hope of self-determination.  Greater Israel comprises almost as many Palestinians as Jews. In a dramatic meeting, the Palestinian Authority disbands itself. Both sides have thrown the Oslo Accords into the garbage heap of history. Israeli troops are now patrolling the major Palestinian cities, where there is ongoing unrest and daily violence. Areas A and B are being administered by Israeli government officials and the salaries of West Bank Palestinian doctors, nurses, teachers and civil servants are now being paid by the Israeli treasury. The Muqata'a in Ramallah, the former headquarters of Palestinian 'President' Mahmoud Abbas, is now staffed by soldiers from the IDF's Central Command. Rightist dreams that the WB Palestinians will be granted political rights by Jordan have been dismissed out of hand by King Abdullah. Israel is fending off a barrage of external condemnations and boycotts (Trump excluded) while internal polarization has never been greater. "One person one vote for Palestinians" has become a rallying cry throughout the world; many Palestinians join the call, others join Hamas.  Manifestations of antisemitism in Europe and the US have snowballed. The stream of liberal Israelis to safer shores swells to an exodus. I could go on ...

The ravings of a disgruntled, self-hating leftie?  Really?  For what, if not such nightmare scenarios, have persuaded successive Israeli  governments to resist appeals by the zealots to apply sovereignty to 'Judea and Samaria' since 1967? Yes, Israel annexed Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, but taking the West Bank would be biting off more than it can chew. 

So, anti-Zionists everywhere take heart. If Israel starts annexing chunks of Area C, your day will soon be coming. The country that once claimed to be 'Jewish and democratic ' will suddenly, irrevocably be neither. And, incredibly, all this will accomplished by it's own hand, by "the most right wing Israeli government ever". Together with your most loyal allies, the jubilant Jewish settler lobby, you will emerge victorious.

But what are the real chances of annexation happening?

Well, at least superficially, The signs are all around us. The pressure to annex Area C  has gradually moved from the parties on  the messianic religious right (e.g. Jewish Home) to an ever more militant and religious Likud. On Netanyahu's watch, Likudniks with liberal values (Beni Begin, Rubi Rivlin, Dan Meridor) have been replaced with a young guard of militants which seems to be losing patience with the unresolved status quo in "Judea and Samaria". With some half a million Israelis now living over the Green Line the notion that settlers should be subject to special rules, or international interference,  is to them, anathema. "We win elections," they grumble, "but we don't rule." 

 Moreover, the idea is gaining traction with the general public. A recent Haaretz poll found that 42% of the Israeli public favored some form of annexation (11% full annexation with political rights for Palestinians; 16% full annexation with no political right and 15% "just" area C). Only 28% were opposed to any annexation and 30% didn't know. 

And then, Bibi himself, three days before the April 9 general election, stated baldly  "Yes. I will extend sovereignty but I don't distinguish between the settlement blocs and the isolated ones, because each settlement is Israeli and I will not hand it over to Palestinian sovereignty." True, given the timing, this was a transparent bid to siphon off votes from his more militant right wing coalition partners, but once on the record it becomes hard to shake off. 

Now comes the statement (June 9, New York Times) by Trump's pro-settlement ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, “Under certain circumstances, I think Israel has the right to retain some, but unlikely all, of the West Bank.” 

In Israel, (and around the world) this was generally understood as Friedman preparing the ground for eventual recognition of annexation. And why not, given Trump's track record  - recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights in March this year and of Jerusalem as Israel's capital in 2017.  It's little wonder that the Palestinians, furious with the Trump administration, are redoubling their efforts not to cooperate with his limping 'Deal of the Century'. 

Some, however, have noted a discrepancy between the "Friedman backs annexation!" headlines and what he actually said. While Netanyahu used the words "extend sovereignty," a phrase indistinguishable from annexation, Friedman used the more diplomatic, "retain" and would not "prejudge" how the US might respond to a unilateral annexation move. 

Meanwhile, exhausted by the recent last elections, held hostage by its prime minister in the sacred cause of keeping him out of jail on corruption charges, Israel is again heading for new elections in September. When the results are in, Avigdor Liberman (Yisrael Beitenu)  could well hold the keys to Bibi's next coalition yet again. Knowing that, will Netanyahu use the annexation card to siphon off votes from his rival and prop up his fragile regime? You can put money on it. 

If you are a person who wants Israel to maintain its Jewish majority and if it matters to you that Israel remains a democracy, you would want to avoid the annexation of Area and C at almost any price and this indeed is what Israel has done up until now. Moreover, no-one is marching in the streets for annexation and 'Let's Annex' flags are not hanging from Israeli balconies. It's not going to happen very soon. It could happen gradually and not in one fell swoop. But for as long as the right-religious camp remains in power in Israel and for as long as Trump remains in power in the US, it will be the threat of annexation - not Iran, not Hezbollah, not Hamas - that will be the biggest threat to Israel's existence.