THE new Israeli unity government of Benjamin Netanyahu and Benny Gantz is threatening to annex large swathes of the West Bank, including the Jordan Valley, starting in July.

This is a time for Labour and the British government to be vociferous and proactive in seeking to stop this happening — not just moaning after the event.

Palestinian civil society has made a very clear call for all states across the world to take “effective measures” to stop the annexation taking place.

The only way to do this is for governments to make clear that sanctions will be the consequence if Israel goes ahead.

Annexation sounds like something anodyne, administrative — neutral and not dangerous.

But correctly described by leaders of the Arab List — on demonstrations in Tel Aviv — as a “war crime,” annexation is illegal under international law.

Annexation is the forcible and unilateral acquisition by one state — in this case Israel — of territory over which it has no recognised sovereignty and to make it an integral part of the state.

The land under threat is in those parts of the West Bank which were militarily occupied by Israel in 1967.

This would be the culmination of years of appropriation of land — through the forced displacement of Palestinians, settlement and the annexation of East Jerusalem in 1980.

The annexation of East Jerusalem was globally condemned, but, in the end, tolerated.

As we have seen with the Black Lives Matter protests in the US and here, the British colonial legacy lingers long and large — nowhere more so than in Palestine, a British protectorate until we walked away in 1947 allowing the Nakba to take place when the modern state of Israel was formally created by the UN.

The Nakba saw 700,000 Palestinians forcibly moved from their homes and villages, left stateless and refugees.

Annexation would, in effect, be a second Nakba, permanently depriving Palestinians of land that has been theirs for generations.

Since 1967, the territories Israel occupied have been primarily governed, through the military commander, by military law and Palestinians have had some protection under international law under the laws of occupation.

These are designed to protect the civilian population during a military occupation which is presumed to be temporary.

Although all the land from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River has been under Israel’s control and domination since it was occupied, it has not directly come under the laws of Israel and the Knesset.

Through settlements, the wall and other laws, such as giving Israeli citizenship to settlers, Israel has sought to blur the lines, however the distinction between Israel and the land it occupies has been broadly maintained in law.

This distinction was the basis of the Oslo accords, which were designed to create the pathway to the creation of the state of Palestine as part of the “two-state solution.”

While annexation was always on the agenda for the more fundamental zionists within Israel, Netanyahu has mainstreamed it as part of his determination to cling to office.

This has been egged on by Donald Trump and the plan drawn up by his nephew, Jared Kushner.

The proposals in this fake “deal of the century” are a one-sided attempt to impose an unjust outcome destroying core Palestinian rights — in particular their right to self-determination.

This plan and Trump’s actions have been a dream come true for the hardliners in the Knesset, which has a majority publicly supporting annexation.

But time is critical — to do it before the US presidential elections, in case he is not re-elected.

But also, for a Netanyahu concerned about his legacy, to start it while he is still prime minister and before his trial concludes.

For Trump, it is a further appeasement to his Evangelical Christian base who support a greater Israel — albeit for different reasons, predominantly driven by anti-semitic sentiments.

The core and fundamental purpose underlying annexation is that it permanently puts the “nail in the coffin” of a two-state solution. It leaves no room for any conceivable viable Palestinian state.

It is critical to understanding the motives behind Israel’s actions to recognise that it has no interest in and does not want to see the creation of an independent state of Palestine.

It wants to retain total control of all the land between the sea and the Jordan river and this it is granted under the Trump plan.

Its problem is that there are roughly seven million Jews and seven million Arabs in this land mass, so Israel does not want to sequester all of the occupied territories and all its people. It wants to take as much land as possible, with as few Palestinians as possible — to quote Netanyahu “not a single Palestinian.”

In its very essence, apart from being theft and a naked land grab, the annexation proposed by Israel is discriminatory. It picks and chooses who it wants, excludes those who are not Jewish.

It grants rights, privileges and status to some whilst denying and excluding others.

This view was iterated in a letter to Israel’s ambassador in Britain, Mark Regev, by a group of prominent British Jews: “It would have grave consequences for the Palestinian people most obviously. Israel’s international standing would also suffer, and it is incompatible with the notion of Israel as both a Jewish and democratic state.”

Palestinians in East Jerusalem were not granted citizenship when it was annexed, just the status of residents — made to pay taxes, but not eligible to vote.

It is not clear, as yet, what status would be granted to any Palestinians, if there are any, within the annexed territory or to those remaining in the occupied territories. So, Israel, far from being a democratic state, becomes even more entrenched as what the Israeli human rights organisation Breaking the Silence describes as “One State, One Discriminatory Regime.”

They go on to say that the term “one state, one discriminatory regime” points to the fact that “once Israel has declared annexation, it has declared that its control over the entire territory between the river and the sea is intended to be permanent.”

The racial discrimination will not be limited just to fundamental legal and political rights but will permeate every aspect of Palestinian life.

In an excellent briefing, another human rights group — Yesh Din Volunteers for Human Rights — details a number of the other major consequential effects annexation will have.

It details the impact in two major areas — freedom of movement and property rights. Under Israeli law residents of the West Bank have no right of entry to Israel, they need a permit and to go through border controls.

Annexation would make whole new areas “no go” zones for Palestinians and would require the establishment of permanent barriers and border controls.

In addition to the settler road system that they are currently excluded from, this would cut across and block many of the remaining roads.

As has been seen in East Jerusalem and elsewhere, once under Israeli law, the way would be open for the expropriation of Palestinian land and houses by the state — because they, the Palestinian owners and residents, were no longer present.

It would deny access to agricultural land, facilitate the growth of settlement building and the continuation of ethnic cleansing through expulsion and house demolitions.

Also, it will entrench the already disproportionate control of natural resources, such as water, oil and minerals.

Israel has waged a strategic campaign for over a decade to have referring to Israel as an apartheid state and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign labelled anti-semitic. The worry that a growing number of people and states normally supportive of Israel’s actions have is that annexation will have the effect of legitimising both.

Apartheid is defined as a system of legalised racial segregation in which one racial group is deprived of political and civil rights.

This is precisely the effect that annexation will make transparent and clear for the world to see and impossible to ignore.

In the eyes of the International Criminal Court apartheid is a crime against humanity.

In this context it becomes not only desirable, but an obligation on government signatories to consider what sanctions they will put in place.

Palestinian civil society has made a global call for “effective measures” to be taken to stop this annexation happening.

If the measures are to be effective, this means Britain should now, at the very least, be adhering to an ethical policy on all Britain’s trade with Israel, in particular by applying international law on settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories and stopping any arms trade with Israel that is used in violation of the human rights of Palestinians.

In the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic the challenge is to respond to the call from Palestine by making annexation a live issue on the current political agenda. Israel’s timetable is to annex land quickly with Trump’s support — this means we cannot wait.

It means that stopping annexation must be part of Labour’s foreign policy agenda. Most crucially it means that at some point Labour has to recognise there must be consequences for Israel’s continual breaches of international law. Surely annexation is that tipping point.

The Palestinian call for effective measures is a reasonable one; internationally sanctions have been the response to annexation.

This time we cannot stand idly by.” Sanctions now” was an anti-apartheid campaign call, it sounds right again.

A number of organisations, including Labour & Palestine and PSC, are leading the response to the call from Palestine.

The general secretaries of nine trade unions including Len McCluskey and Mick Whelan, cultural figures including Peter Gabriel, Philip Pullman and Maxine Peake, and 33 parliamentarians including Jeremy Corbyn, Andy Slaughter, Diane Abbott, Stephen Kinnock and Bell Ribeiro-Addy have all supported the call.

Join the campaign to Stop annexation — sign the statement on the Labour & Palestine or PSC websites:

http://labourandpalestine.eaction.online/stopannexation and www.palestinecampaign.org.