Canada, France and the UK have issued a joint statement urging Israel to not expand its ongoing military operations in Gaza and to allow immediate delivery of humanitarian aid. The three countries have also called upon Israel to halt illegal settlements in the West Bank. The statement seemingly demonstrates a shared interest on the part of the three nations to push for ‘achieving a pathway to a two-state solution.’
It appears to be a delicately crafted text that conveys a pertinent message to Israel and other parties regarding the urgent need for ceasefire, release of hostages and pursuit of a political solution. The UK and France are Permanent Members of the UN Security Council where they have taken specific positions on issues relating to Palestine including it being recognised as an independent State. Canada, however, is an all-weather friend of Israel.
The joint statement expresses concerns and expectations in regard to the abominable humanitarian situation and wanton destruction in Gaza as well as flagrant dispossession and annihilation of Palestinians through continuing illegal settlements in the West Bank, within the constraints placed by traditional pro-Israeli foreign policy stances of these countries.
The three nations seem to pay particular attention to ‘the High-level Two-State Solution Conference at the UN’ slated for June 18, 2025. This Conference co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia is supposedly aimed to build global consensus on a two-State solution. Both countries believe that it would also help develop some consensus on the future of Gaza.
Reflects foreign policy stances
What follows here are some quotes from the joint statement which, examined closely in conjunction with the respective foreign policy stances of the countries that issued it, reveal both the growing concerns they entertain as a result of the escalating Israeli military actions, as well as rhetorical sophistry. It is not surprising that one cannot find terms such as genocide, apartheid or ethnic cleansing in the joint statement.
The joint statement “strongly oppose(s) the expansion of Israel’s military operations in Gaza.” It is evident there is no opposition to military operations per se, but the expansion thereof remains a concern. If the military operations have not expanded, the implication is that it is still within the parameters of the exercise of the right to self-defence that they have already recognised.
In a courageous move, the statement calls “Israeli Government’s denial of essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population (is) unacceptable” and then goes on to add that the denial of essential humanitarian assistance “risks breaching International Humanitarian Law.”
After several thousands of innocent lives were snuffed out including UN and humanitarian workers, in addition to women and children, followed by enforced hunger in Gaza, it is striking that the authors of the joint statement could only go so far to state that the situation risks breaching IHL, not has actually breached.
Humanitarian aid
The assertion made in the statement that “if Israel does not cease the renewed military offensive and lift its restrictions on humanitarian aid”, these countries “will take further concrete actions in response” is worth noting. Nevertheless, before enquiring as to what ‘further’ concrete actions they may envisage, it would be useful to learn from them one concrete action they have taken during the last 18 months, to ensure the unimpeded flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza.
To stress that they “oppose any attempt to expand settlements in the West Bank” and that “Israel must halt settlements which are illegal and undermine the viability of a Palestinian State and the security of both Israelis and Palestinians” is a significant prompt. It is aptly followed by a stern warning: “We will not hesitate to take further action, including targeted sanctions.”
Though this was aimed at marauding extremist settlers who are a law unto themselves, the call to not expand settlements in the West Bank, and to halt the ongoing ones, may possibly signal that there is no rolling back the illegal settlements already established during the last 18 months.
By mentioning “further action, including targeted sanctions”, it is possible that the authors intend to build upon UK’s and EU’s listing (France is bound by it) of a few extremist Israeli settlers who unleashed violence on Palestinian civilians in the West Bank, forcing them out of their homes and farm lands. A potential effect of such an action is that those named and their family members are banned from travelling to countries which issued targeted sanctions.
The Lieber Institute West Point, in an incisive piece on this subject, raises important questions in the context of targeted sanctions. The following two stand out: “why only targeted sanctions, and why is there no genuine effort towards an (international) criminal law response, given the nature of the acts involved?” And “why only this limited number of individuals and none of them formally affiliated with the government while other sanctions regimes do list state officials?” In other words, why complicit state officials should remain immune.
June 18 New York Conference
´The joint statement importantly asserts: “It is a ceasefire, the release of all remaining hostages and a long-term political solution that offer the best hope of ending the agony of the hostages and their families, alleviating the suffering of civilians in Gaza, ending Hamas’ control of Gaza and achieving a pathway to a two-state solution, consistent with the goals of the June 18 conference in New York co-chaired by Saudi Arabia and France.”
While ending Hamas’ control of Gaza appears to be part of a stronger determination of the countries concerned, with regard to recognising a Palestinian state, the commitment appears to be initially to encourage ‘achieving a pathway to a two-State solution’. And even so, that pathway is seemingly not linked to the existing UN resolutions which call for two states that exist side by side within secure borders, borders being understood to be those which existed prior to the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. Nevertheless, the statement attempts to connect the ‘pathway to a two-State solution’, to the outcome of the June 18 New York Conference.
A pertinent question arises in this context. Is the planned high level event intended to align its goals with the UN Resolutions on a two-State solution and the vision of a Palestinian State existing within pre-1967 borders? Or would it focus on a different criterion that does not emphasise pre-1967 borders? The preparatory process for the high level event may reveal which direction it would go, provided the process itself takes off the ground.
Despite some lack of clarity as explained, it is salutary, however, that the joint statement proclaims that the three countries “are committed to recognising a Palestinian State as a contribution to achieving a two-State solution and are prepared to work with others to this end.” This is apparently a more straightforward articulation of a commitment to recognise a Palestinian State. Already, several Western countries are talking about the prospect of a viable Palestinian State. This possibly lends itself to a scenario that probably envisages less than the 1967 borders.
The question, however, remains open whether some of the influential Arab countries are now stepping up to that possibility, in their renewed, but disparate drives, to find a solution to the question of illegal Occupation of Palestinian Territory. This said, it is, however, timely that such an important statement has come out as the shared voice of Canada, France and the UK. It would be interesting to see how the EU or its member states such as Germany and Italy, as well as other Western countries would react to it in the coming days.
The author served as the Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations in Geneva and as Ambassador to Austria and the Vienna-based International Organisations. [IDN-InDepthNews]
