Israel’s relations with its Western allies hit a new low in late May when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused the leaders of France, Britain and Canada of “emboldening Hamas.” This came after the three governments released a joint statement calling Netanyahu’s government “egregious,” after it had vowed to “take control” of all of Gaza. The statement went on to threaten, “further concrete actions,” if Israel did not cease its renewed military offensive and lift its restrictions on humanitarian aid.
The tone of the statement and Netanyahu’s response point to tensions that have been growing between Israel and its non-US Western allies. Where once they stood in solidarity, as the Gaza war seemingly stretches on indefinitely with ever more Palestinian deaths, they are now more and more willing to denounce and criticise. However, is this any more than a rhetorical shift? Are the ‘concrete actions’ that Western leaders threaten likely to come about, and will they make any difference?
Turning tides?
The UK, France and Canada's joint statement came in a week that marked a notable shift in Western governments’ rhetoric towards Israel. Soon after the statement, a European Union foreign ministers meeting agreed to review the EU-Israel Free Trade Association Agreement. EU Foreign Affairs chief Kaja Kallas, in announcing the decision, demanded action from Israel on humanitarian aid, calling the situation “catastrophic.”
Days earlier, the UK’s Foreign Secretary David Lammy had used even harsher language. Lammy stated in parliament that Israel’s treatment of Gaza was “an affront to the values of the British people,” and that Israel’s cabinet ministers’ calls to expel Palestinians from the strip were ‘repellent’, ‘monstrous’ and ‘extremist’. Echoing EU policy, Lammy announced that free trade talks between Britain and Israel would be suspended, and wider talks about a future bilateral strategic roadmap would be reviewed.
For his part, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz criticised Israel's air strikes on Gaza as no longer justified by the need to fight Hamas and "no longer comprehensible" and Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul warned Germany's historic support for Israel must not be instrumentalised, as massive air strikes and shortages of food and medicines had made the situation in Gaza "unbearable".
Then and now
While Western states are far from unanimous in their condemnation, only 17 of the 27 EU states reportedly backed the review of trade relations, this rhetoric seems a long way from the early days of the Gaza conflict. French President Emmanuel Macron once offered “unreserved solidarity” with Israel after October 7, while UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, when leader of the opposition in October 2023, said Israel had “the right” to cut off water and power to Gaza during its early offensives.
Yet as the Gaza war has gone on and the horrific casualties have mounted, Western governments have become ever more critical. For a long time, it was the smaller, more peripheral powers of Ireland, Spain and Belgium that led condemnation, but larger states like Britain and France have gradually shifted too.
In September 2024, the UK suspended 30 arms licenses to Israel because it believed there was a “clear risk” that they would be used to violate humanitarian law. Macron also called for arms deliveries from France to halt a month later. But even then, these were largely symbolic acts and did not mark a significant policy shift. Macron reiterated France’s “unwavering commitment” to Israel in a phone call to Netanyahu in response to the suspensions, while Britain continued to permit approximately 320 further arms licenses, far more than were suspended.
All bark, no bite?
So does the current shift in rhetoric, and Israel’s response, mark a new, significant rupture? Critics have been quick to say no. In Britain, backbench parliamentarians argued that Lammy offered too little policy to match his rhetoric. Merely suspending trade talks would have minimal impact, prompting some backbenchers to call for more significant actions like suspending arms exports, banning trade and recognising Palestine.
Though the UK raised new sanctions on three West Bank settlers and four settler entities, Lammy declined calls to sanction two Israeli cabinet ministers, including Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who had stated that, “we will level all of Gaza.”
The EU has similarly been challenged for not going far enough. Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares called for sanctions against Israel in response to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Many have noted that the EU is Israel’s largest trade partner, responsible for 32% of Israel’s goods trade in 2024. As Albares suggests, Brussels therefore has leverage should it wish to utilise it, but has thus far been unable and/or unwilling to match its rhetoric with action. Partly, this reflects the continued divisions among EU member states, with Germany, Austria, Hungary, and the Czech Republic in particular being more sympathetic to Israel than other members.
The American Factor
But the other major factor in Western governments’ approach to Israel is the US. While President Trump was unlikely to join Canada, Britain and France’s statements, given his closeness to Israel, he did say of the new Gaza offensive that, “we want to see if we can stop that whole situation as quickly as possible”—a quietly more critical tone than before.
Moreover, Trump has shown other signs of distance from Netanyahu recently, notably his closeness to Gulf leaders during a recent visit, his indirect talks with Iran and his willingness to meet Syria’s new leader and drop sanctions. Even so, it is implausible that Trump will start to refer to the Israeli premier as ‘egregious’, especially when his administration has been deporting activists and threatening universities for their criticisms of Israel.
The US’s continued closeness to Israel, therefore, remains a significant consideration for how other Western governments approach any shift in policy. Though tensions with the Trump administration remain high over tariffs, Ukraine and, in Canada’s case, the threat of annexation, Western leaders recognise they must still perform something of a balancing act.
They desire an independent policy towards Israel, something their own publics often demand, but also know the US is the only state that can truly influence and temper Israeli behaviour. They may fear that if they adopt too confrontational a position, it will create an even greater gulf between them and the US, removing any chance of persuading Trump to pressure Netanyahu.
Moreover, realpolitik considerations are at play. European leaders still hope that Trump can play a constructive role in the Ukraine war and containing Russia, which is far more of a pressing threat than Gaza, whatever their sense of outrage. Once again, this makes them wary of straying too far from the US line.
