Sanctions, Settlements, and Statehood

The West’s Gaza Statement Signals a Turning Point ... Maybe?

The joint statment ...

On May 20, 2025, the leaders of the United Kingdom, France, and Canada issued a joint statement that marked a potentially significant shift in Western diplomatic language toward the war in Gaza. Though cautious in tone and careful not to sever ties with Israel outright, the statement went further than many observers expected: condemning Israel’s latest military escalation, warning of possible sanctions over illegal West Bank settlements, and acknowledging the unbearable humanitarian toll in Gaza.

It is, at long last, a statement of moral clarity—but also one of calibrated restraint. Its timing is crucial. The war in Gaza, now in its eighth month, has flattened neighborhoods, displaced over two million people, and brought Gaza’s population to the brink of famine. Israel’s siege has cut off medicine, fuel, and food. The world has watched. And the West, until now, has mostly equivocated.

This joint statement, then, signals an overdue but welcome awakening. It also exposes the limits of allied consensus and raises questions about the kind of leadership the moment demands. For those of us who have served in diplomacy and crisis zones, it reads as both a step forward and a missed opportunity.

“This joint statement, then, signals an overdue but welcome awakening”.

A Reckoning with Reality

The most important line in the statement is not the threat of future sanctions or even the condemnation of forced displacement—though both are critical. It is the sentence that reads: “We will not stand by while the Netanyahu Government pursues these egregious actions.”

That is an unmistakable political message. Western leaders, long deferential to Israel’s framing of this war, are now saying that they see a different reality. A reality in which Gaza is not simply a battleground, but a place where humanitarian law is being breached, civilians are being targeted, and international norms are being ignored.

“Western leaders are now saying that they see a different reality.”

It is notable that this condemnation comes not from adversaries of Israel, but from three of its closest Western allies. And it comes with more than words: the statement mentions “concrete actions” and “targeted sanctions” should Israel continue its siege and settlement expansion. This is no longer the language of empty concern. It is the language of consequences—or at least the promise of them.

The Cost of Delay

But why now? Why did it take eight months, tens of thousands of deaths, and international court cases alleging genocide for Western powers to express something approaching outrage?

The answer lies in political calculus. In the United States, which is noticeably absent from this statement, an election looms. President Trump has openly embraced Netanyahu, signing record arms deals and offering only muted criticism of Israel’s conduct. In this climate, it has fallen to America’s closest allies to express what Washington will not.

The UK, France, and Canada are trying to reclaim a semblance of moral leadership. Their voters have marched in protest. Their diplomats have pleaded behind closed doors. Their parliaments have debated the legality of Israeli actions. And now their leaders are signaling: enough.

But one cannot ignore the fact that this reckoning comes late. The infrastructure of Gaza has already been decimated. The health system is collapsing. Aid convoys are parked at borders, unable to enter. Children are dying of dehydration in a coastal strip. Words, however forceful, cannot resurrect the dead.

“The infrastructure of Gaza has already been decimated. The health system is collapsing. Children are dying of dehydration in a coastal strip.”

On Recognizing Palestine

Toward the end of the statement, the leaders pledge something significant: recognition of a Palestinian state. They tie this recognition to the broader project of achieving a two-state solution and link it to the upcoming June conference at the UN, co-chaired by Saudi Arabia and France.

This is a commendable shift. For years, Palestinian statehood has been treated as a distant reward contingent upon negotiations that never happen. Now, recognition is being framed as a contribution to peace rather than a concession extracted through endless dialogue. This reframing matters. It breaks the cycle of conditional diplomacy.

“Recognition is being framed as a contribution to peace rather than a concession extracted through endless dialogue.”

Still, it is vague. There is no date. No roadmap. No criteria. And importantly, no mention of the International Criminal Court, where accountability for war crimes must eventually be pursued.

The Role of Qatar and Egypt

Another strength of the statement is its acknowledgment of regional actors—specifically Qatar and Egypt—who have played pivotal roles in brokering hostage releases and mediating fragile ceasefires. That recognition is both accurate and deserved. Qatar in particular has spent months walking the tightrope between conflicting parties, earning criticism and admiration in equal measure.

What the statement does not say, but should have, is that without Qatar’s backchannel diplomacy, there would likely be hundreds more hostages still in captivity and thousands more lives lost. Western powers have, at times, denigrated these efforts, only to rely on them when their own tools fail. This hypocrisy must end.

“Without Qatar’s backchannel diplomacy, there would likely be hundreds more hostages still in captivity and thousands more lives lost.”

If the West is serious about peace, it must move beyond performative gratitude and treat regional mediators as equal partners in the negotiation of post-war arrangements. That includes including them in discussions on Gaza’s reconstruction, political administration, and long-term stabilization.

Settlements and the Elephant in the Room

The statement’s denunciation of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank is perhaps its boldest element. It directly challenges a decades-long reality in which settlements have expanded with near-total impunity. Calling them out as illegal and threatening targeted sanctions is a policy shift that could, if acted upon, reframe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But here too, the statement tiptoes. It does not name individuals or entities to be sanctioned. It does not specify whether products from settlements will be banned or labeled. And it omits the fact that Israel’s current coalition government is explicitly pro-annexation.

Without a clear enforcement mechanism, this warning risks becoming another diplomatic gesture—loud but toothless.

“Calling out settlements without consequences risks becoming another diplomatic gesture—loud but toothless.”

A Moment of Divergence

Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the statement is what it implies about Western unity. The absence of the United States from this declaration is deafening. Washington’s silence underscores a transatlantic rift that is growing wider by the week.

Europe and Canada are inching toward accountability and recognition of Palestinian rights. Washington, under Trump’s second term, is doubling down on arms sales and ideological alignment with Netanyahu. This divergence presents both a challenge and an opportunity.

For those who still believe in multilateralism, it is a reminder that the world cannot wait for the U.S. to lead. For countries like Qatar, France, and Saudi Arabia, it is a call to form new diplomatic configurations, perhaps even a “Group of Friends” committed to peace through international law rather than political expediency.

“This divergence presents both a challenge and an opportunity.”

What Comes Next

Statements like these matter only if they are followed by action. The days ahead will test the credibility of the UK, France, and Canada. Will they push for a Security Council resolution enforcing a ceasefire? Will they condition arms sales on Israeli compliance with international law? Will they move toward formal recognition of Palestine in bilateral terms, not just as a UN talking point?

And what of the June conference in New York? Will it produce more than communiqués? Or will it be remembered as yet another moment when the international community chose symbolism over substance?

We will know soon enough.

Final Thoughts

For too long, the story of Gaza has been one of broken promises and impunity. Every bombing campaign is followed by pledges to “rebuild,” every ceasefire by a return to structural violence. The joint statement from the UK, France, and Canada interrupts that pattern. It names the crimes. It threatens action. It reasserts the primacy of law.

But it also falls short. It does not name Gaza’s agony as apartheid. It does not declare a red line. And it does not yet offer the kind of bold moral leadership that moments like this demand.

If the authors of this statement want history to remember them not as witnesses to catastrophe but as architects of peace, they must move swiftly from words to deeds.

“If the authors of this statement want history to remember them not as witnesses to catastrophe but as architects of peace, they must move swiftly from words to deeds.”

The world is watching.

---

Nawaf Al-Thani is Editor-in-Chief of Polistratics and a former defense diplomat. His column “Nawaf’s Notes” runs weekly.

---