 For more videos on people's struggles, please subscribe to our YouTube channel. Hello and welcome to People's Dispatch. Today we are joined by Palestinian lawyer and activist Deanna Bhutto and we are going to be talking about the Israeli annexation plan that was originally scheduled to begin on the 1st of July. Now according to this plan, Israel's Israeli government had announced that it would take over the land on which legal settlements are built. It would take over large parts of Jordan Valley and that's a considerable part of the occupied West Bank would have come under direct Israeli control. It would have been organized by Israel, to put it exactly. So we have with us Deanna to talk about this. Thank you so much for talking to us Deanna. And to begin with, could you first talk about since July 1st what has exactly been happening on the ground because the government does not exactly seem to have released details about whether it has started the plan, whether it is going ahead with the plan or whether it has put it on the back burner for some time. I think it's important to first keep in mind that there was nothing sacred or special about July 1st. That was listed as the first date that they could begin annexation and the way that they were going to begin annexation was through one of two methods. One was to either put forward a law into the Knesset, the parliament, or through a cabinet bill doing the same. And the reason that July 1st was the date that was specified was that this was the date that was spelled out in the agreement between Netanyahu and his once rival who then became his ally, Benny Gantz, as being the first date that such legislation could be introduced. So we don't know if things are on hold. We don't know what the shape of annexation looks like. What we do know is that it hasn't been called off. There hasn't been a statement by Netanyahu backing off of it. We haven't heard Gantz back down from it either. In fact, all that we've been hearing is that they haven't yet put forward the details of it in large part because we are now here experiencing a second wave when it comes to the spread of the coronavirus. And this particular government was a government that was enacted only to address the coronavirus with one exception and that is annexation. So I don't suspect that things are going to be canceled. In fact, I just suspect that it's going to be somewhat delayed until a little bit of a later time, but certainly no later than when the US elections take place. That's what I predict. Right. So to take maybe a step backwards, something you and many other commentators have pointed out, of course, is that annexation per se is not something new. This is not any new thing. It's been happening for decades. We've seen, for instance, the devolution of houses, the takeover of lands. We've seen a lot of other atrocities. We've also seen steps like the building of the Apartheid Wall, for instance, which in many ways basically create the structure for that. But even so, in that sense, how do you see this marking, for instance, a new phase in the occupation that is taking place right now? Over the course of the past 53 years, we've seen two different approaches take place when it comes to the occupation. The first approach, which has been the approach that we've seen over the course of the majority of years, has been what's called the quiet approach, or what others have termed creeping annexation or de facto annexation. And in that system, what's done is that we've already seen the measures of annexation on the ground, but it's been done quietly. So we've seen the construction of 130 settlements. We've seen that there are now 700,000 Israeli settlers, which just to put it in perspective, that's 25% of the population of the West Bank. We've seen that checkpoints, there's nearly 700 checkpoints and roadblocks in place in the West Bank. We've seen the construction of the wall. We've seen land confiscation. We've seen home demolitions. We've seen settler violence. These are all measures that have been undertaken now for 53 years. The difference between that and the other approach, which is the loud approach, is that in the past, while it was all done very quietly, along comes Netanyahu, who says, I'm not going to do things quietly any longer, and I'm going to be bold, and I'm going to be in your face about it, and watch. I want to see if the world's going to stop me. So it's important to keep in mind that in 2018, when Israel passed a law that was called the Jewish nation state law, which is a law that privileges Israel's Jewish citizens over its non-Jewish citizens, it's a Jewish supremacy law in effect, again, he didn't have to do that because the Israeli Supreme Court was already on side with everything that the government had been doing, and it had already instituted this measure of Jewish supremacy. The difference was that he wanted to be loud about it, he wanted to be bold, and he wanted to see if the world would stop him, and they didn't. And so too, when it comes to this current phase of annexation, all that he is doing is he is saying to the world, I want to see if you're going to stop me. It formalizes the system of apartheid as we already know it, and the only thing that makes it different is that now he's saying to the world, I'm going to institute apartheid and I want to see if you are going to stop me. On the ground, it may not change a lot. There will be some changes, and I don't want to undermine those. I do believe that this move will embolden the Israeli settler movement, it will allow the settlers to go and attack Palestinians with a lot more freedom. I think that it's also going to embolden the settlers to build and expand more settlements. I think that it's also going to embolden the Israeli government to demolish more Palestinian homes, and I think it's going to embolden the Israeli government to try to get rid of as many Palestinians as possible. So I don't want to say that there's no substantive difference between pre-annexation and post-annexation, but the difference in the minds of the Israeli government, the reason that this is being done now is because he can. Right. So this of course has a lot to do with Trump's so-called deal of the century itself. A lot of the Netanyahu's annexation plan is very closely connected to Trump's plan as well. But let's take this question also to that of the two-state solution. Now we know that the two-state solution has virtually been dead for quite some time. There's been talk of it, but clearly the situation on the ground is completely changed. So what does this annexation plan do to this two-state solution? The two-state solution died the minute that the Israelis were unwilling to uproot any settlers, and sadly that was in 1968. And so we've been living since that time with this myth that somehow Israel is going to end the settlement enterprise, that it's going to withdraw the settlers, that it's going to end its colonial rule, and we know that it won't. The difference between that position and what's happening now is that while we Palestinians have known this for quite some time and have been articulating this for many, many years, this is now the first time that the international community is realizing the death of the two-state solution, which is why they're pushing back so hard on this issue of annexation. The issue of annexation, formal annexation, does two things to the international community. It forces them to reconcile with the fact that there is not going to be a two-state settlement, and it forces them to reconcile with the fact that there is no peace process. And given that this is where the state of affairs is, it requires that they actually put into place measures to stop annexation. But we've known for 53 years that Israel will never withdraw or evacuate its settlements. Right. So the other key question was also regarding the Palestinian Authority itself, because it as an institution, it was a product of the Oslo Accords and also is very closely associated with the idea of the two-state solution itself. And this annexation plan, for instance, is more of an existential threat to the PA than maybe anything in the recent past. Now, the PA did say that it is going to cut any kind of relations with Israel, and it has taken a strong position. But as of now, what are the options before it in terms of responding? The Palestinian Authority rightfully point out it's a creation of Oslo. It's so directly affiliated with Oslo. Their options are very limited at this point, and I think that they're recognizing this. I think first, I want to just very quickly tackle the issue of ending cutting ties with Israel and what that means. You know, many people were looking at this issue of ending security collaboration as being that the Palestinian Authority is no longer going to arrest people at Israel's behest, and it's no longer going to imprison people at Israel's behest. That's only part of the picture. The problem is is that Israel has transformed civilian life into entirely security measures. And what that means is that if you are, for example, a merchant and you want to import in goods from, let's say, India or from China or from Turkey or from anywhere around the world, you actually need a security permit to be able to do that. If you are a cancer patient and your cancer needs any form of radiation, you cannot get radiation therapy in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip because radiation equipment, you know, something as life-saving, is considered to be something that is beyond Israel's security, what they're willing to absorb security-wise. In other words, they won't allow for quote-unquote security reasons Palestinian hospitals to have radiation equipment. What that means is that you then need to obtain an Israeli permit to be able to get radiation or in some other types of treatment inside an Israeli hospital. Again, that's a security permit. If you are a person who wants to work as a any shape or form of work as a person who's from a Palestinian West Bank town to a Palestinian town inside Israel or any other city, again, you have to obtain a security permit. And so what Israel has done is that this isn't just a question of cutting off security collaboration with Israel, which is a good thing. It's that Israel has so tied in Palestinian civilian life into this issue of security that I don't think that it's going to be sustainable for the Palestinian authority to maintain that cut in ties and that at a certain point it's going to be forced to go back to resuming its relationship with Israel unless it comes up with a completely different model. And that is something that so far we have not yet seen. Instead, we've seen that while they are protesting the issue of annexation and they have called for sanction, which is the first time ever, that they haven't really conceived of a different model to challenge Israel. They haven't pushed for accountability. They haven't been, for example, saying that they're giving up on the peace process. In fact, just today they announced that they would be willing to resume negotiations. And so unless they pursue a very different model with a very different strategy, we are going to be seeing a resumption sadly of all of this security collaboration cooperation. And in this context, I think it's important also to note that the bulk of the resistance has been carried out by ordinary Palestinians themselves, both in Palestine, of course, and in other parts of the world. So we've of course seen the great march of return protests, which almost for a year kept the flag of resistance flying and many other such initiatives. So are some of the models you're talking about being discussed or proposed in this resistance from the people or what is the kind of resistance building up right now? Oh, definitely. The only people who aren't talking about resistance is the Palestinian Authority. It's been really remarkable to see the various responses to annexation. Everything from people who are saying it's time to abandon Oslo, to people who are saying it's time to abandon the two state framework, people who are calling for one state, people who are supporting farmers in their attempts to be able to stay on their land, various measures to try to block settlers from fire bombing many of the orchards in the West Bank. We've seen a lot of resistance, some measures small, some measures big, but all of it are surrounding the same idea, which is that we want our freedom. We've even seen that Hamas and Feta have come together because there is no real dispute between them when it comes to what the outcome is. We all want our freedom. None of us want to live under Israel's thumb any longer, under Israel's boot any longer. And so that part has been very heartening. What's been disheartening is the fact that the Palestinian Authority remains wedded to this framework, a framework that failed for, you know, 27 years. And finally a question about the situation Israel itself. So over the past couple of years we've seen a considerable shift of course to the right and this happens even as Netanyahu has been embroiled in corruption cases, there's a loss of faith in the political system, multiple elections have been held which haven't thrown results. So has there been, even amid the right-wing shift, has there been also some form of a protest movement or some form of resistance building in Israel itself or is it just a complete shift to the right? That's a really good question. It's small. The resistance movement is small and in some cases a little bit misguided. So on the issue of annexation there's been two types of people or two types of resistance to annexation. The bulk of the resistance to annexation, and this is the bulk, is people like the quiet group that I was talking about a little bit earlier who say we can have our cake and eat it too. There's no need for us to prod the international community. We can continue to build settlements. We can continue to erect checkpoints. We can continue to steal Palestinian land. Why do we have to be so bold about it? And so this is what you've heard from former Israeli generals. You've heard this from former Israeli prime ministers who've all repeated the same mantra. And so the idea that they're part of the resistance is a joke. There's another smaller type of resistance and that's the much more principled resistance. And that people who are saying annexation is wrong because it's illegal. And annexation is wrong because it changes the international world order. And annexation is wrong because it sends the message to the Israeli settler movement that it can do whatever it wants. And so on that group of people who have been resisting, it's primarily Palestinians, Palestinian citizens of Israel, but there are also some Jewish Israeli citizens who are saying that we really need to wake up and recognize what all of this means and where it is that we are going and where it is that we're taking Palestinians in the region as a whole and the world as a whole. And so on that part it's small, but the numbers are growing. Thank you so much, Jair, for talking to us. My pleasure. That's all we have time for today. Keep watching People's Dispatch.