A group of 28 Republican lawmakers in the Senate and House wrote to the leaders of Australia, Canada, France and the U.K. urging them to walk back their plans to recognize a Palestinian state this month and threatening potential retaliation if they proceed.

“This is a reckless policy that undermines prospects for peace. It sets the dangerous precedent that violence, not diplomacy, is the most expedient means for terrorist groups like Hamas to achieve their political aims,” the Republicans, led by Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) and Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), wrote. “Accordingly, we respectfully request that you reconsider your decision, especially as Hamas continues to hold Israeli citizens hostage while still refusing to agree to a ceasefire.”

The Republicans suggested that the move could prompt “punitive measures” by the United States, without offering further details.

They said that unilateral recognition “undermines the principles of direct negotiations and imperils Israel’s security by removing incentives for Palestinian groups to repudiate terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and address final-status issues” and is “especially troubling” in the context of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel.

They said that granting statehood now would only serve as a validation of Hamas’ activities and fuel more violence in the future, and that statehood should not be granted “until the Palestinians are willing to take responsibility for their people, renounce terrorism, and come to the negotiating table in good faith.”

They emphasized that France, the U.K., Canada and other countries lost citizens as well in the Oct. 7 attacks and that Hamas continues to hold hostages in “deplorable conditions.”

“Hamas’ war crimes are clear, and its rejection of diplomacy should lead your countries to impose more pressure. Instead, you offer greater rewards,” the lawmakers continued.

They said that the “misguided effort to reward terrorism” will also endanger the Jewish populations in the U.S. ally nations, where they already face rising antisemitism, harassment and attacks.

“You have the responsibility to stand against this scourge, denounce violence, and protect Jewish communities,” the lawmakers argued. “Sadly, your actions to legitimize a Palestinian terror state will only provide greater motivation to the violent antisemitic mobs.”

The letters were co-signed by Sens. Tom Cotton (R-AR), John Cornyn (R-TX), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Bill Hagerty (R-TN), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), Steve Daines (R-MT), Dan Sullivan (R-AL), Joni Ernst (R-IA) and Dave McCormick (R-PA) and Reps. Rudy Yakym (R-IN), Greg Steube (R-FL), Barry Moore (R-AL), Jefferson Shreve (R-IN), Josh Brecheen (R-OK), Chris Smith (R-NJ), Craig Goldman (R-TX), Mike Flood (R-NE), Marlin Stutzman (R-IN), John McGuire (R-GA), Scott Franklin (R-FL), Claudia Tenney (R-NY), Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) and August Pfluger (R-TX) 

Stefanik said in a statement to Jewish Insider, “Unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state undermines the principles of direct negotiation and imperils Israel’s security. This absurd action would reward the behavior of Hamas terrorists and does nothing to secure the release of the 48 hostages still held by Hamas.”

The Sept. 27 deadline to snap back United Nations sanctions on Iran’s nuclear and other weapons programs is rapidly approaching. 

The E3 — as France, Germany and the U.K. are known — announced last month that they planned to trigger the snapback sanctions mechanism, meaning the likely return of all U.N. sanctions that had been “sunsetted” per the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

In an interview with Jewish Insider’s Lahav Harkov on an episode of the Misgav Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy’s Mideast Horizons podcast, Foundation for Defense of Democracies senior advisor Richard Goldberg explained the snapback procedure and how the sanctions are expected to damage Iran’s economy.

Goldberg recently finished a stint as the Trump administration’s National Energy Dominance Council’s senior counselor and was the director for countering Iranian weapons of mass destruction in the first Trump administration. 

“The Iran nuclear deal, in 2015, set out all kinds of parameters for the years to come,” Goldberg said. “In 2020, the conventional arms embargo on Iran went away. That was scheduled to happen as one of these sunsets under the deal. That was a [U.N.] Security Council restriction previously on Iran. … The missile embargo goes away.”

Another part of the Iran deal set to sunset was the snapback mechanism itself, which expires at the end of this month.

Snapback “was part of the marketing sell to Congress and the American people by [former Secretary of State] John Kerry and [former President] Barack Obama at the time, saying that if Iran violates the deal at any time, we can just bring back all the sanctions from the U.N.,” Goldberg recounted.

The snapback procedure outlined in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the formal name for the Iran deal, states that after snapback is invoked, other U.N. Security Council members have 10 days to propose a resolution opposing the return of the sanctions. The council would then have to affirmatively vote not to enact snapback, with the permanent members retaining veto power, Goldberg explained.

Ten days after the E3 triggered the snapback sanctions process, no country had submitted such a resolution, requiring the current president of the UNSC, South Korea, to do so instead, and hold a vote within the 30-day period from the snapback announcement. The vote has not been scheduled yet, and in all likelihood, the U.S., France or the U.K. will veto the resolution, such that snapback will take effect.

“The process does appear to be unfolding by the book,” Goldberg said.

“The onus is on the Iranians or the Russians or the Chinese to try to overcome a U.S. or European veto,” Goldberg said. “We have all the cards.”

If the resolution to cancel snapback does not pass, then the JCPOA “sort of self-destructs,” he said. That means the return of the U.N. missile embargo and conventional arms embargo on Tehran, and Iran will no longer be permitted to enrich any uranium.

“Then, it’s on the secretariat, the U.N. staff, the secretary-general … to actually do the things that need to happen to roll back to the previous sanctions regime,” Goldberg said. “And that will be the next test to see if the Russians or Chinese exert some kind of pressure. … I expect it will occur at this point.”

Goldberg said it is important not to stop the snapback process, even if Iran suddenly agrees to cooperate. 

“You don’t stop the snapback, which goes away in just a few weeks,” he said. “You cannot trigger this again after October; it’s done. Iran just wins all these strategic gains forever. … You have to complete the snapback because you don’t get another chance at it.”

The impact of snapback would be significant on several fronts.

“On a strategic level, they will no longer have any claim of legitimacy to transfer weapons to Russia,” Goldberg said. “Technically, the Russians today will tell you that it is fully legal under the Security Council, which is true. … That will be done after the snapback is completed.”

It also sends a message to any other countries who may want to help Iran rebuild its nuclear program or its missile activities that “you are in violation of a Security Council resolution and [the U.S. and Europe] are going to hold you accountable.”

In addition, Goldberg said the sanctions will hurt the regime economically.

“I think that’s one of the reasons why they fought this so hard,” he said. 

Throughout the years, as the E3 spoke out against Iran’s violations of the JCPOA, the deal was still in place, Goldberg said, and even as the Iranian economy tanked, the sunsetting of sanctions gave the markets hope that they had not yet reached bottom.

“You have seen the Rial go back into freefall since snapback was triggered. That means there’s instability again. There’s uncertainty again. Once snapback happens and all the international resolutions come back, there is no hope of the JCPOA coming back. …The patient is dead, we’re sitting shiva, it is over. I think that is an unpredictable reality for the regime, for its economy and its financial stability,” he said.

At the same time, the U.N. sanctions are not financial; they are on weapons programs and trade in components, but not on individuals or banks.

Goldberg argued that Iran “value[s] the veneer of legitimacy” from being part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and what the sunsetting of U.N. sanctions permitted — such as selling drones that Russia used in its war against Ukraine.

“It’s a bizarre thing in regimes like Iran, even Russia, China, though they flout international law, conduct illicit activity, make a mockery of the international institutions which we founded and still care about,” he said, “they actually try to use them to create their own sense and source of legitimacy, so a Security Council resolution that has their back … is really valuable to them because it forces the Europeans to contort themselves.” 

“They yearn for that legitimacy to insulate themselves from further pressure from good actors,” he added.

Last week, Iran was elected vice-chair of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s annual conference, while refusing to allow the agency to inspect its nuclear sites.

“Only in the United Nations can such a thing occur,” Goldberg said, calling it “a wild, wild thing.” 

Iran is supposed to allow basic inspections of its nuclear facilities as a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Under the framework of the JCPOA, they agreed to adopt “additional protocols,” including snap inspections and videotaping of their nuclear facilities. Iran stopped respecting those commitments years ago.

Still, the IAEA was able to release quarterly reports on Iran’s enriched uranium stockpiles, something that Goldberg said is “not going to happen for the foreseeable future, because all those stockpiles and the materials and the facilities are either heavily degraded or destroyed” by the June strikes by Israel and the U.S.

The world, however, “should be worried long-term about reconstitution efforts,” he said. 

The question remains how the world will know if Iran tries to reconstitute its nuclear program, given the lack of oversight.

“We will have to rely on Western intelligence between Israel, the U.S., partners and allies, and whatever else the IAEA can glean on its own from visits and tours that the Iranians allow … We should obviously be pushing them to accept inspections, robust verification and dismantlement of anything that is left over. … The nuclear-capable missile program still has infrastructure and could be threatening … and maybe foreign actors come in to help them as well,” Goldberg said. 

France, Germany and the United Kingdom triggered the snapback sanctions mechanism on Thursday, to reinstate all United Nations Security Council sanctions on Iran that had been lifted since the implementation of the 2015 nuclear deal.

The European parties to the Iran deal, known as the E3, notified the UNSC that they were triggering snapback sanctions due to Iran’s continued noncompliance with its commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, to which they are still parties despite the U.S. withdrawal in 2018. 

If the UNSC does not adopt a resolution stopping the process — which is unlikely unless Iran reaches an agreement with the West, because it would be subject to vetoes from the states triggering the sanctions and the U.S. — all of the sanctions sunsetted in the framework of the 2015 deal will be restored in 30 days.

However, the E3 said it is open to continuing negotiations with Iran during those 30 days.

The E3’s move came after its foreign ministers met with their Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi in Geneva earlier this week in a last-ditch effort to reach an agreement with the Islamic Republic to scale back its nuclear program. It also comes less than three months after Israel and the U.S. bombed Iranian nuclear facilities, after which U.S.-Iranian negotiations broke down.

“Since 2019,” the E3 foreign ministers’ statement reads, “Iran has exceeded JCPoA limits on enriched uranium, heavy water, and centrifuges, restricted the IAEA’s ability to conduct JCPoA verification and monitoring activities, and has abandoned the implementation and the ratification process of the Additional Protocol to its Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement. These actions contravene Iran’s commitments set out in the JCPoA and have serious implications on the capacity of Iran to progress toward developing a nuclear weapon.”  

The E3 noted that it repeatedly negotiated with Iran to return to its 2015 commitments, to no avail. 

“Today, Iran’s non-compliance with the JCPoA is clear and deliberate, and sites of major proliferation concern in Iran are outside of IAEA monitoring,” the foreign ministers stated. “Iran has no civilian justification for its high enriched uranium stockpile … Its nuclear program therefore remains a clear threat to international peace and security.” 

Among the sanctions that would be restored are an arms embargo, a ban on Iranian uranium enrichment and reprocessing, a ban on transferring ballistic missile technology and technical assistance, a global asset freeze on targeted Iranian individuals and entities and foreign inspections of Iranian cargo planes.

The snapback mechanism was set to expire at the end of October, in accordance with the terms of the JCPOA, but Russia will assume the presidency of the UNSC in October, raising concerns in the West that it would try to delay the 30-day snapback process. As such, the E3 set a deadline for the end of August for Iran to make progress in rolling back its nuclear program. 

In 2020, two years after the U.S. left the JCPOA, the first Trump administration attempted to trigger snapback sanctions, but the other parties argued that it was no longer entitled to do so. 

Iran’s Foreign Ministry said that it “categorically reject[s] and condemn[s] in strongest terms the unlawful notification by the E3 to the UNSC … This escalation will severely undermine the ongoing process of engagement between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency. It will be met with appropriate responses.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the U.S. supports the E3’s move and called it “a direct response to Iran’s continuing defiance of its nuclear commitments.”

“At the same time,” Rubio said in a statement, “the United States remains available for direct engagement with Iran … Snapback does not contradict our earnest readiness for diplomacy, it only enhances it.”

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar posted on X that “even after Israel and the U.S. operation against Iran’s nuclear program, Iran hasn’t abandoned its desire to acquire a nuclear weapon. This is why the E3’s move to initiate the return of UN sanctions on Iran is inevitable. It is an important step in the diplomatic campaign to counter the Iranian regime’s nuclear ambitions.”

France plans to remove a call for the “right of return” for millions of Palestinian refugees to Israel from its declaration, made alongside 60 other countries, for a Palestinian state, Ofer Bronchtein, an advisor to French President Emmanuel Macron, told Jewish Insider on Wednesday.

France and Saudi Arabia spearheaded a conference at the U.N. last month to call for a two-state solution, resulting in a declaration calling for Palestinian statehood that was signed by the entire European Union, Arab League and other countries, which is expected to be the text of a U.N. General Assembly resolution next month. 

Article 39 of the declaration calls for “a regional and international framework offering appropriate support to resolving the refugee question, while reiterating the right of return.”

In the context of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, the right of return refers to Arab refugees from the 1948 Israeli War of Independence, as well as all of their descendants, amounting to millions of people around the world, who could seek to migrate to sovereign Israel.

Israel has argued that such a move would shift the demographic balance such that Israel would no longer be a Jewish and democratic state.

Yigal Carmon, president of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), wrote this week in an X post that the call for a right of return “cancels recognition of Israel” by the U.N., which came in the context of partition between Jews and Arabs on the land. 

“Thus, France and the countries that will support the resolution are adopting the joint Palestinian demand of Hamas and the PLO for a right of return to the State of Israel and cancel the recognition of the State of Israel from May 15, 1948. Such a decision, when it is accepted, will return Israelis and Palestinians to the year 1948 and reopen the violent struggle between the two nations over the territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River,” Carmon wrote.

Bronchtein responded to Carmon on X, writing that “this is a mistake that we are correcting. The correct text will be that ‘the sides will negotiate about a solution to the refugee problem.’ Thank you for your understanding and justified concerns.” 

Bronchtein, a French-Israeli dual citizen who also holds a Palestinian Authority passport promised to him by PLO leader Yasser Arafat in recognition of his peace activism, was an advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin during the negotiation of the Oslo Accords. He currently serves as the French president’s special envoy to the Middle East.

Bronchtein told JI that opponents of the declaration are nitpicking to undermine it, and said that the declaration “is almost 20 pages long, and those are two words.” 

Still, he acknowledged that the wording of Article 39 “could be problematic.”

“We are working with the Saudis to find a way to make it clear that was not our intention at all. Macron will say this is our stance. We are not planning to force the return of Palestinian refugees anywhere,” he said.

Bronchtein said the intention was to resolve the refugee issue through negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. 

“It is clear to all that there are certain topics that we do not want to dictate a resolution to the Israelis and the Palestinians, which are refugees, Jerusalem and borders,” he said.

In addition, Bronchtein said the mention of a “regional and international framework” was intended to refer to the roughly 750,000 Jews from Arab and Muslim lands who became refugees following Israel’s independence. 

Carmon told JI that Bronchtein’s response was insufficient, and that “only changing Article 39 would be a fraud because [the right of return] is in two other places.”

The declaration indirectly recognizes a right of return by supporting the Arab Peace Initiative and U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194, which states that Palestinian “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so…and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return.” 

“They’re saying everyone can return,” Carmon argued. “The difference between this and recognition of a Palestinian state is that they are making a decision about Israel. They are pulling the rug out from under the recognition of the State of Israel.”

“They are opening the gates of hell,” he added.

Carmon criticized the Israeli Foreign Ministry for not addressing this matter. The office of Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. Danny Danon was not available for comment.

Carmon also emphasized that, in February, the emir of Qatar met with Macron and committed to investing 10 billion Euros in France.

Emmanuel Navon, an international relations lecturer at Tel Aviv University, similarly told JI that “Macron is reading the Qatari script, which consists of preserving the right of return while pretending you don’t.”

Navon also expressed skepticism that Bronchtein’s post means the text will, in fact, be amended.

Bronchtein defended France’s move to recognize a Palestinian state, amid vocal opposition from Israel and the U.S. France is also considering opening an embassy in the West Bank city of Ramallah later this year, Israel’s Channel 12 reported on Thursday.

“By recognizing a Palestinian state, we are encouraging those who support two states,” he said, while acknowledging that recognition alone does not create a state: “We will help, certainly, but the sides need to work things out.” 

Bronchtein also referred to a letter that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas wrote to Macron, who asked for assurances before the U.N. conference.

“It says important things in Arabic and in English,” he noted. “First, it condemns what Hamas did on Oct. 7. Second, it calls for the immediate and unconditional release for the hostages. Third, it calls on Hamas to disarm and surrender. Fourth, it says a Palestinian state will be demilitarized. Fifth, it says there will be a reform in the PA and elections within a year. He agrees to a lot of things the current Israeli government wants.” 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “said two weeks ago that, in the end, the ones who will run Gaza are Palestinians,” Bronchtein said. “That’s what we think too. He said it can’t be Hamas, and everyone agrees, including the Arab League. But then he says it can’t be run by the PA. Then which Palestinians is he talking about? … Abbas is the best Palestinian partner today. He will not be an enthusiastic Zionist. He is an enemy, but a pragmatic one…There is no alternative.” 

Netanyahu and U.S. Ambassador to France Charles Kushner have in recent weeks accused Paris of emboldening antisemites by recognizing a Palestinian state and not doing enough to fight antisemitism. Bronchtein argued that France is working hard in that regard, providing security to institutions and enforcing hate crime laws.

“To turn France into an enemy and call the president of France antisemitic crosses every line…It’s a lie to say we encourage antisemitism,” Bronchtein said. “Whoever says recognizing a Palestinian state is a prize for Hamas is lying. Hamas doesn’t want a Palestinian state. They entered Israel on Oct. 7 with green [Islamist] flags, not the Palestinian flag.”

France, Germany and the U.K. are poised to reinstate snapback sanctions on Iran in the next several days, after talks held in Geneva this week aimed at scaling back Iran’s nuclear program reportedly concluded with little progress.

The three countries — known as the E3 — sent a letter to the U.N. Security Council earlier this month outlining “ongoing concerns regarding the lack of assurances as to the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program” and Tehran’s ongoing violations of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, to which the E3 countries are still parties despite the U.S. withdrawal in 2018. 

The countries threatened to reinstate snapback sanctions by the end of August 2025 if “no satisfactory resolution” to the issue was reached before then. 

The mechanism to trigger snapback sanctions at the UNSC expires in October, at which point any attempt to adopt new UNSC sanctions could face vetoes from Russia and China. However, the E3 and U.S. are looking to start the process before Russia assumes the UNSC presidency in October, giving it the power to delay the imposition of snapback sanctions — a process that takes 30 days to complete — until its expiration date. 

The foreign ministers of the E3 and Iran met in Geneva earlier this week to discuss a diplomatic solution that would see Iran roll back its nuclear program without additional sanctions, which reportedly ended with little progress made.

A senior European diplomat told Axios on Wednesday that it would take a “diplomatic miracle” to prevent the reinstatement of snapback sanctions, with the European nations poised to trigger the mechanism as soon as Thursday.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio held a call with the E3 foreign ministers on Wednesday, during which all of the officials “reiterated their commitment to ensuring that Iran never develops or obtains a nuclear weapon,” State Department Principal Deputy Spokesperson Tommy Pigott said.

U.S. lawmakers have repeatedly pressed for the E3 to trigger the snapback mechanism.

U.S. Ambassador to France Charles Kushner on Sunday penned an open letter to French President Emmanuel Macron, published in The Wall Street Journal, criticizing the “dramatic rise of antisemitism in France” and Paris’ failure to address the threat.

In the op-ed, Kushner, who arrived at his posting last month, raised concerns that in France, “not a day passes without Jews assaulted in the street, synagogues or schools defaced, or Jewish-owned businesses vandalized,” citing statistics shared by the country’s Interior Ministry regarding the rise in antisemitism incidents.

Kushner called on Macron to “enforce hate-crime laws without exception; ensure the safety of Jewish schools, synagogues and businesses, prosecute offenders to the fullest extent; and abandon steps that give legitimacy to Hamas and its allies.”

In response, France’s Foreign Ministry summoned Kushner, issuing a statement calling his comments “unacceptable.” The letter comes weeks after Macron’s announcement that Paris intends to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state at next month’s United Nations General Assembly.

An Anti-Defamation League report from 2023, released months before Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks, found that the “penetration” of antisemitism in France, the U.K., Germany and Spain “into the political mainstream is cause for concern and has in some cases alienated Jews and other supporters of Israel.”

Kushner wrote in the WSJ that since Oct. 7, 2023, “pro-Hamas extremists and radical activists have waged a campaign of intimidation and violence across Europe.”

Antisemitism in France has been on the rise for years. In 2022, Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt, at the time the Biden administration’s special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, warned that antisemitism in France was no longer “unique” and had spread across the European continent. 

Earlier this month, the head of CRIF, the French Jewish umbrella group that represents the community, noted a “very strong rise” in antisemitism in the country, adding, “I don’t know a family that is not speaking about” emigration to Israel.

Eleven countries declared their intention to recognize a Palestinian state in conjunction with Tuesday’s France and Saudi Arabia-sponsored conference at the United Nations on a two-state solution.

The Arab League, along with the entire European Union and seventeen additional countries, signed the “New York Declaration,” which details a plan starting with the immediate end of the war and concludes with an independent, demilitarized Palestinian state living peacefully next to Israel. The declaration calls for UNRWA — the U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees, some of whose employees participated in the Oct. 7 attacks — to take part in the transition, and for the Palestinian Authority to implement reforms and hold democratic elections within a year.

Notably, by signing the declaration, for the first time, the entire Arab League — including Hamas benefactor Qatar — condemned Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks on Israel and called for the terrorist group to disarm, give up its rule over Gaza and release the hostages in order to end the war. 

A separate statement, the “New York Call,” was signed by 15 Western countries, six of whom already recognized a Palestinian state, and another nine who “expressed or express willingness … to recognize the state of Palestine as an essential step towards the two-state solution, and invite all countries that have not done so to join this call.”

Most U.N. member states — 145 out of 193 of them — recognize a Palestinian state, the vast majority of them having followed the Soviet Union in doing so in 1988. Nine of them took the step after the Oct. 7 attacks and the start of the war in Gaza. Eleven more announced the intention to do so this week.

The countries that joined the “New York Call” were Andorra, Australia, Canada, Finland, Luxembourg, Malta, New Zealand, Portugal and San Marino.

The declaration came hours after British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that his country will recognize a Palestinian state by September if Israel does not reach a ceasefire with Hamas — though Hamas is the one who rejected such a deal last week — and commit to not annexing the West Bank and agree to reviving the idea of a two-state solution. 

Last week, ahead of the conference, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that Paris would also recognize a Palestinian state in September at the U.N. General Assembly.

The response from Jerusalem was overwhelmingly negative, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warning that recognizing a Palestinian state “rewards Hamas’s monstrous terrorism and punishes its victims … Appeasement towards jihadist terrorists always fails.” Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar called the statements “a reward for Hamas … at a time when Israel is still fighting in Gaza and there are still Israeli hostages there,” and “a rash and ill-considered decision, primarily driven by internal political considerations and pressures.” 

Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid wrote that “if Europe genuinely wants a Palestinian state to come into being one day, it needs to … demand that the Palestinians change … Declaring support for those who handed out candy in the streets of [the West Bank cities of] Nablus and Hebron on the morning of Oct. 7 does not advance a two-state solution. If anything, it pushes it further away.” 

The State Department also called the conference an “unproductive and ill-timed publicity stunt” that will “embolden Hamas and … undermine real-world efforts to achieve peace … It keeps hostages trapped in tunnels.”

Former hostage of Hamas Emily Damari, a British citizen, posted on X that Starmer’s recognition of Palestinian statehood “risks rewarding terror [and] sends a dangerous message: that violence earns legitimacy … Recognition under these conditions emboldens extremists and undermines any hope for genuine peace. Shame on you.” 

The Hostages Families Forum said that “recognizing a Palestinian state while 50 hostages remain trapped in Hamas tunnels amounts to rewarding terrorism … The abduction of men, women, and children, who are being held against their will in tunnels while subjected to starvation and physical and psychological abuse, cannot and should not serve as the foundation for establishing a state … The essential first step toward ensuring a better future for all peoples must be the release of all hostages through a single, comprehensive deal.”

Dan Diker, president of the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, said in an interview with Jewish Insider that the move to recognize a Palestinian state emboldens Hamas, in that it convinces them that “they’re winning the long game. Hamas now says ‘The West is with us.’ This is exactly what they want, to pressure and corner Israel to succeed, and Hamas will say, ‘We’re not going to release the hostages.’ They’re just biding their time.” 

Emmanuel Nahshon, the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s former deputy director for public diplomacy and a former ambassador to Brussels who resigned in protest against the government last year, told JI that 11 countries saying they’ll recognize a Palestinian state in one week creates “a slippery slope” towards diplomatic isolation for Israel.

“This enables countries that were friendly with Israel to criticize us publicly, and strengthens extremely radical elements in those countries,” Nahshon said. “It’s a kind of perfect storm with the purpose of delegitimizing Israel.”

Among those countries, he said, are Canada, the Netherlands and France.

“These are countries that we always considered to be like-minded, in terms of a point of reference for the State of Israel. We don’t want to compare ourselves to African dictatorships; rather, we see ourselves like Western European democracies. Now, Western European democracies are growing more and more distant from Israel,” Nahshon said.

Diker said that 11 countries recognizing a Palestinian state is “very dangerous in the perception war.” 

“This is the greatest success for what was originally a Soviet plan, that the Palestinians under [PLO leader Yasser] Arafat and [Palestinian Authority President] Mahmoud Abbas and then Hamas inherited. The strategy is to divide … Western states from Israel, isolate Israel, and cause it to bleed to death,” he said.

Diker noted that France and the U.K.’s position is especially consequential because they are permanent members of the U.N. Security Council aligned with the U.S. If London and Paris follow through and recognize a Palestinian state, the U.S. will be the only permanent member of the UNSC not to do so.

Diker said that “what Starmer and Macron … [did] is an ill-advised move … The PA have not satisfied any of the requirements for statehood. They don’t have a functioning government; they don’t have control over the population or the ability to engage in international relations — they have 100 political warriors they call diplomats and all they do is subvert Israel.”

Nahshon added that the countries “are not stupid; they know that even if they recognize a Palestinian state it doesn’t mean there is a Palestinian state. You can trust the international community that they understand fully well that it won’t have practical, immediate implications, certainly not when Palestinians are unable to run their own state and possibly unwilling to have their own state, because if you ask most Palestinians, they would rather destroy Israel.” 

Rather, he said the move to recognize a Palestinian state “sends a message to Israel of criticism and disapproval,” Nahshon said. “It’s addressed first and foremost at Israel … It’s a vote of no confidence addressed at the Israeli government saying, ‘We are very unhappy with the way you run the war in Gaza and with the free hand given to extreme settlers.’ The message is addressed to Netanyahu and his government.”

Diker pointed out that Starmer is “a well-heeled international lawyer, a human rights lawyer,” and that he and Macron “see themselves as being the human rights conscience of the Europeans” but put pressure mainly on Israel, “ironically, while Hamas kills and tortures its own people while they’re seeking humanitarian aid.”

“Israel has had a very serious problem in leading the narrative,” Diker said. “This is narrative warfare … [that] brought us to where we are … Israel has got to pull itself together and prosecute a soft power war.”

Diker called for there to be widely-released images of “Israeli soldiers handing food and aid to the Gazans. That is political, cognitive warfare. We should be seen doing that.” 

Asked if that might be a domestic political risk to the current Israeli government, Diker said: “If we’re totally isolated internationally, it’s a fundamental threat to our existence. We can’t operate in a vacuum.” 

Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE) attempted to call up and pass by unanimous consent a resolution urging the United Kingdom, France and Germany to trigger the snapback of United Nations sanctions on Iran under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action “as soon as possible,” but was blocked by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).

“In order to seize this moment,” and capitalize on Iranian weakness, “the U.S. and our allies must impose maximum pressure to the highest extent possible to force Iran to agree to permanently and verifiably end its nuclear program, including its capacity to enrich,” Ricketts said on the Senate floor on Wednesday.

The option to invoke snapback is set to expire in mid-October, but Ricketts emphasized that the process will take at least 30 days to complete, and that Russia is set to assume the presidency of the U.N. Security Council in October, in which role it could delay the proceedings. European allies have reportedly set an August deadline to initiate snapback, but Ricketts argued that “timeline … leaves little room for error.”

“I stand to urge our European friends to hold the line” in upcoming talks with Iran, Ricketts said, warning that Iran is trying to buy time and delay snapback.

Paul warned that the U.S. attack on Iran might make Iran more resistant to U.S. demands and “may turn out to be a disaster” that prompts Iran to sprint to a nuclear weapon.

He argued that sanctions have never changed Iran’s behavior — a notion disputed by leaders on both sides of the aisle — and “are often counterproductive” in general. Paul also suggested that the U.S. is in no position to make any requests related to snapback since President Donald Trump removed the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018.

“It is a bit inconsistent for us to be arguing that Europe should apply and adhere to the JCPOA, which we no longer participate in,” Paul said. “If the United States is no longer a member of the JCPOA, what gives Washington the right to advise those who remain in it to invoke certain mechanisms within the agreement?”

He requested the Ricketts resolution be modified to instead call for deescalation and diplomacy.

Ricketts responded that diplomacy without pressure is a failed concept.

Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also spoke on the Senate floor in support of Ricketts’ resolution.

“Over the last 10 years, Iran has enjoyed unwarranted sanctions relief and time is short before the opportunity expires to snap back sanctions,” Risch said. “We cannot afford to wait until the end of August. Initiating the snapback process would be the right and long overdue move.”

France, Germany and the U.K. will bring back sanctions on Iran via the U.N. Security Council if a nuclear deal is not reached by the end of August, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot warned on Tuesday.

Barrot said that the E3, the European countries party to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, will trigger the snapback mechanism, reimposing all U.N. sanctions, if a new agreement is not reached.

The Trump administration hopes to reach an agreement with the Islamic Republic to stop any uranium enrichment in Iran after Israeli and American strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites last month, aiming to prevent Tehran from rebuilding its severely damaged nuclear program.

“France and its partners are …  justified in reapplying global embargoes on arms, banks and nuclear equipment that were lifted 10 years ago,” Barrot said on the way to a meeting with EU foreign ministers in Brussels. “Without a firm, tangible and verifiable commitment from Iran, we will do so by the end of August at the latest.” 

The snapback mechanism expires in October and takes 30 days to activate, such that the end of August is the last chance to impose U.N. sanctions that cannot be vetoed by Russia and China, Iran’s allies on the Security Council. Moscow is slated to assume the presidency of the U.N. Security Council in October and could try to obstruct the move if it is not completed before then.

The E3 reached the shared policy in a phone call with Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday, according to Axios. 

Barrot’s statement also came after reports in Arabic and Iranian media that Germany planned to activate snapback sanctions this week, which the German Foreign Ministry denied to Jewish Insider. A German official confirmed that his country shares France’s position.

Earlier this week, Tehran threatened a “proportionate and appropriate response” if the E3 snaps back sanctions, a move Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei claimed “lacks any legal, political or moral justification.”

“European parties are constantly trying to use it as a tool in violation of their fundamental obligations,” he added. 

President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Wednesday swore in Charles Kushner as the U.S. ambassador to France. 

Kushner, a real estate executive, longtime Jewish philanthropist and father of Trump’s son-in-law Jared, was confirmed in May on a mostly party-line vote, with Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) the only Democrat to support the confirmation. 

In Kushner’s testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he told senators about his parents having immigrated to the U.S. from Belarus, where most of their family died in the Holocaust. 

“My parents loved and appreciated our great country, the land of opportunity, just as I do,” Kushner said. 

In 2020, Trump pardoned Kushner, after the latter served two years in a federal prison for tax evasion and for retaliating against a federal witness. In November, Trump described Kushner as “a tremendous business leader, philanthropist and dealmaker.” 

During Kushner’s Oval Office swearing-in, he was joined by his children and grandchildren, including Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump — a rare White House appearance for the couple, who opted not to take on any official roles in Trump’s second term. Jared Kushner was a top Middle East advisor to Trump in his first term, and his swearing-in came as Trump is considering whether the U.S. should attack Iran’s nuclear program.

French President Emmanuel Macron’s campaign for international recognition of a Palestinian state and championing of an upcoming United Nations conference on the subject despite U.S. opposition has received a frosty reception from Senate Republicans.

France is set to co-chair “The High Level International Conference for the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution” with Saudi Arabia at the U.N. headquarters in New York next week. Several described it as a distraction from U.S. efforts to secure peace in the region while praising the Trump administration’s decision to urge U.N. member states against participating. 

The U.S. sent a diplomatic demarche on Tuesday discouraging countries from attending the summit, “which we view as counterproductive to ongoing, life-saving efforts to end the war in Gaza and free hostages,” according to the cable. The demarche, first reported by Reuters, stated that any government that took “anti-Israel actions” after the conference would be viewed as acting in opposition to U.S. foreign policy priorities and warned of potential diplomatic consequences.

“It certainly sounds like they take us for granted and think that they can act without consequence. France has a long history of doing this in foreign policy. They’re consistently a problem and have been forever, but I’d say it’s very unhelpful of them at this present moment,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) told Jewish Insider. 

“Well, it’s Macron. The Bob Dylan song ‘Blowing in the Wind’ was named after him,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) said. “He’s powerless right now, and he’s got too much time on his hands.”

Asked what the response should be from the U.S. if Macron continues with this approach, Kennedy replied, “Unless it gets out of hand, I would just ignore them. Nobody’s scared of France. Germany runs Europe, not France. Right now, I know the Brits have left the EU but they’re still part of NATO, and the two countries that matter right now are Germany and the U.K. I love France … but I meant what I said, Macron, he’s lost all of his power. He’s erratic.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said he spoke to French officials to try to dissuade them from continuing their Palestinian statehood push, but did not divulge how they responded. “Now is not the time. That’s what I told the French,” Graham told JI.

“They’ve generally had a cozy relationship with Iran that is purely driven by economic ties, maybe some historic ties. It makes no sense to me. I don’t think it’s well received by our administration,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) said.

Pressed on if France’s efforts would have an impact on U.S. foreign policy, Tillis replied: “I don’t know. I think it all depends on how far it goes. I think they’re still in the thought phase. It will be interesting to see if anything meaningful comes out of it, then I think the administration will probably take a more definitive position against it.”

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) offered a similar take, telling JI, “France will be France. When they need our help, they always come ask us. Right now they’re trying to be tough, so let them stand there on their own ground, by all means. What they do doesn’t change what we decide to do.”

Israel and France have been on a diplomatic collision course in recent weeks, with French President Emmanuel Macron set to lay out steps toward the recognition of a Palestinian state at a French- and Saudi- sponsored conference promoting a two-state solution being held at the United Nations headquarters in New York next week.

The move comes as the French government released a report calling on Paris to recognize a Palestinian state and recalibrate its policies towards Israel to “appease” France’s growing Muslim population.

Last month, Macron called Israeli policies on Gaza “shameful” and raised the possibility of downgrading European Union cooperation with Israel; in response, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Macron of spreading blood libels and standing with Hamas. Days later, France threatened sanctions on Israel if it does not allow unrestricted humanitarian aid to be distributed by U.N. agencies in Gaza. After Macron once again threatened to “toughen” his stance against Israel last week, the Israeli Foreign Ministry accused him of being on a “crusade against the Jewish state” — referring to a period in which French knights massacred European Jews. 

France has been preparing to co-chair “The High Level International Conference for the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution” with Saudi Arabia at the U.N. on June 17-20. Macron said last week that the conference, which was first announced in December, is meant “to give fresh impetus to the recognition of a Palestinian state.” The French Foreign Ministry told The Guardian that Paris is trying to convince other countries to join it. The gathering’s other agenda items include reforming the Palestinian Authority and disarming Hamas. 

French diplomats met with officials in Jerusalem to discuss the matter, and briefed reporters that the main goals of the conference are disarming Hamas, freeing the hostages, reforming the Palestinian Authority and planning for the “day after” the war in Gaza, including a two-state solution. 

A French diplomatic source said on Sunday that France is “determined to recognize the state of Palestine to create the conditions for the existence of this state … Our goal for this conference indeed goes beyond the question of recognition. It is indeed about recreating an international consensus around the two-state solution, which allows for a lasting resolution to the conflict.”

Amid the sparring between Israel and France and the preparation to recognize a Palestinian state, the French Interior Ministry released a report titled “Muslim Brothers and Political Islam in France,” calling the Muslim Brotherhood an “imminent threat” to French national security. The Islamist group is funded by foreign powers, has over 100,000 members in France and runs or influences countless mosques, schools and other organizations. The report also describes the Muslim Brotherhood’s dissemination of antisemitic texts and propaganda.

Among the report’s recommendations is “the recognition by France of a Palestinian State alongside Israel” to “appease the frustrations” of French Muslims who perceive Paris as “supporting Jewish Israelis against Muslim Palestinians.”

Experts drew a connection between Macron’s pressure on Israel, Muslim Brotherhood influence and antisemitism in France.

French conservative intellectual Michel Gurfinkiel told Jewish Insider that “the main point of the report is not what it says about the Muslim Brotherhood. The real point is the conclusion that the French government should make efforts to bring French Muslims into the French fold, and that means … to recognize a state of Palestine.”

“There is a kind of interplay here,” he added. “The interior minister wanted to publish the report in order to give legitimacy to his own policy against Islamism in France. But it was published with the approval of President Macron … and obviously, the real goal of the president was to tell everybody, ‘I must recognize a State of Palestine because it is the only way for us to fight the Muslim Brotherhood.'”

Gurfinkiel noted that while Macron has to vacate the presidency in two years, he can run for a third nonconsecutive term in 2032, when he will be 55. “To return, his calculation is that he needs to secure the Muslim vote in France, which is going to grow in the coming years. He wants French Muslims to see him as the champion of their cause, and to be a champion of the Muslim cause means you support Palestine. Palestine is a code word for Muslim power in France, just like the right is extremely pro-Israel as a metaphor” against growing Islamism.

Emmanuel Navon, a professor of international relations at Tel Aviv University, also pointed out that the report about the Muslim Brotherhood says “clearly the Muslims are out of control and maybe one way of calming them down is to recognize a Palestinian state.” 

“The report says there is a plan to conquer and Islamicize France. That’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s in the report,” Navon added.

Israel’s former ambassador to France, Daniel Shek, told JI, “I can’t rule out that there are domestic political motivations, but I can say that as someone who knows [Macron] and spoke with him about the topic [of a two-state solution] years ago, it’s not his central motivation. He wants to end the war out of a concern for Israel.”

“You see what happened on the Champs-Élysées on Saturday night,” Navon added, referring to soccer riots last month, during which there were several incidents of antisemitic vandalism. “Macron used an Arabic expression for ‘my brothers’ on Twitter, it is very telling. It’s clear he wants to appease the Muslims. Spoiler: It’s not going to work.” 

The report’s repeated references to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict show that it is an important part of the French public debate because it is a synecdoche for political positions on immigration and Islam in France, Navon and Gurfinkiel said.

Israel’s former ambassador to France, Daniel Shek, however, told JI, “I can’t rule out that there are domestic political motivations, but I can say that as someone who knows [Macron] and spoke with him about the topic [of a two-state solution] years ago, it’s not his central motivation. He wants to end the war out of a concern for Israel.”

Boaz Bismuth, a Knesset member from Netanyahu’s Likud Party and a former diplomat and foreign correspondent based in France, told JI that French Foreign Ministry representatives discussed  Macron’s plan to sponsor a conference supporting Palestinian statehood months ago, long before the French Interior Ministry’s report came out.

“I would even say this is the usual position of the French,” he said. 

Over a week ago, vandals targeted Paris’ Shoah Memorial, two synagogues and a Jewish restaurant in the Marais, the historic Jewish neighborhood, and a third synagogue in another part of the city. A French rabbi reported that he was assaulted twice in the past week.

Gurfinkiel said that Macron’s remarks “obviously” encourage antisemitism.

“What people don’t understand,” he said, “is once you start saying that the Jews in Israel are bad, the consequence is that Jews everywhere are [perceived as] bad. It reactivates countless negative views and images of the Jews that are embedded in Western culture. You can’t escape it.” 

Navon cited a recent French decision to posthumously give Alfred Dreyfus a promotion and said: “Remember that book People Love Dead Jews? It’s exactly that. They love dead Jews. They’re trying to fight antisemitism 100 years ago … but when it comes to the true antisemitism, which is the obsession with Israel and attacking Jews under the name ‘Zionist,’ they basically are taking part in demonizing Israel which encourages it.”

“He says [Israel is] committing war crimes and killing women and babies,” Navon added. “That feeds the antisemitism of the far-left and the Muslims. This hypocrisy is unacceptable.” 

Bismuth also said that he “wouldn’t say [Macron] is an enemy of Israel or hates the Jews. I think he doesn’t understand the significance of what he’s doing.”

“I give him the benefit of the doubt that it’s not intentional … I call on him to show responsibility and understand the consequences and the meaning of the things he said,” the Likud lawmaker stated.

Shek took issue with what he said was “the Israeli government’s position that any initiative to end the war is an existential threat and anyone doing it is an antisemite.”

Bismuth voiced disappointment in Macron, who expressed support for Israel after Oct. 7. “I was in a meeting between him and Netanyahu [in October 2023]. I heard him call to establish an international coalition with Israel against Hamas. And he went from there to calling for an arms embargo on Israel [in 2024] … He did a 180-degree flip-flop.” 

“What France, the U.K. and the U.S. need to remember is that we don’t only share the same values, but also the same enemies,” he added.

Shek also noted that “Macron was a real friend of Israel and defended Israel’s right to defend itself for months.” 

“Then we turned him into an antisemitic enemy and a supporter of Hamas,” he added, referring to the way Israelis spoke about the French president. “And then, we’re surprised that Israel is isolated.” 

According to Shek, Macron’s critical turn happened because “time has gone by and nothing positive is happening. He, like many other leaders in the world, think this war has been continuing for too long and the time has come to stop it. He’s not alone; he’s just more vocal. At least he’s trying to do something.” 

Ilan Berman, senior vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council, said that France leading the U.N. two-state solution conference “speaks to [its] eroding global position currently,” Berman said. “For France, the Middle East in general and Israel-Palestine in particular is a very attractive portfolio to play in and take an outsize role.”

Navon cited two advisors to Macron as major engines behind the U.N. conference. Ofer Bronchtein, a French-Israeli who was involved in the Oslo Accords, is Macron’s advisor on the Middle East and is expected to represent him at the U.N. next week. The other is Jacques Attali, an Algiers-born Jewish social theorist who advised former French presidents Francois Mitterand, Nicolas Sarkozy and Francois Hollande before Macron. Attali began criticizing the war in Gaza as early as November 2023 and recently equated Hamas with Israel’s leadership in a post calling for Europe to “exert pressure” so that both are removed. 

Navon also blamed Qatar’s influence on France, noting that Doha has made major investments in France at a time when the country has a large budget deficit.

Ilan Berman, senior vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council, said that France leading the U.N. two-state solution conference “speaks to [its] eroding global position currently,” Berman said. “For France, the Middle East in general and Israel-Palestine in particular is a very attractive portfolio to play in and take an outsize role.”

Berman expressed concern about the practical impact of France’s moves, saying that “as more and more countries, including upper-tier countries like France, begin to preemptively recognize Palestine as a state, it becomes harder and harder to assume that there isn’t a state, even though the fundamental conditions [for statehood] don’t apply.”

“It’s one thing for Sweden to say it; it’s another when France does,” he added. “There is a question in my mind: At what point does this boulder rolling downhill begin to pick up steam, and what does that mean?”

Shek said that not much will change if France recognizes a Palestinian state, noting that 147 countries, over three-quarters of U.N. member states, have already done so.

“It only pressures Israel, and as far as I’m concerned, that’s OK. If pressure ends the war, brings back the hostages and integrates Israel into the region, then it’s a very pro-Israel act,” he said.

The former ambassador argued that the establishment of a Palestinian state is in Israel’s interest, in that it would “turn the Palestinian Authority into a responsible party.”

Navon agreed that recognition of a Palestinian state will not change much on the ground, but he still called on Israel to scale back relations with France should they take such a step.

“We have to try to circle the wagons against countries trying to appease our common enemy. They are making a moral and practical mistake. The U.S. should make that point very clear,” said Emmanuel Navon, a professor of international relations at Tel Aviv University.

“Make sure they don’t participate in any future diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East. Downgrade security and defense relations, on which they depend. There should be consequences,” he said. “Let’s be obnoxious too. France has problems with former colonies … New Caledonia is supposed to have a referendum [about independence from France] and [the French] keep pushing it off,” Navon said, referring to the Pacific island nation. “Why don’t we bring up a resolution at the U.N.?”

As to what the American response should be to France’s latest moves against Israel, Navon said that the U.S. should not participate in the conference at the U.N. next week and “should be very clear in their statements that this is a global war against terror and that we don’t break ranks.” 

“We have to try to circle the wagons against countries trying to appease our common enemy. They are making a moral and practical mistake. The U.S. should make that point very clear,” he stated.

Berman said that “for the Trump administration, this is a really good opportunity to say ‘put your money where your mouth is’ and help reconstruct Gaza. There is a really good play to be made here. The French, Spanish, Dutch and others are very eager to moralize and grandstand, but very reticent to put their money where their mouth is and contribute.” 

Berman suggested that the Trump administration can say “we disagree with their decision, but in light of it, we hope Paris will agree to [help with] reconstruction and expect greater contributions to the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation,” the U.S. and Israel-backed group distributing food in Gaza.

“It’s the worst of all possible worlds if Macron gets an easy win and doesn’t have to actually do anything,” he added.

The United Kingdom, France and Canada threatened on Monday to take “concrete actions” and impose sanctions against Israel if it does not change its policies on humanitarian aid and the war in Gaza, as well as settlements in the West Bank.

The statement from the three countries came in response to Israel’s announcement that it had begun an escalation in the fighting in Gaza, while allowing in a limited amount of food, 11 weeks after blocking all aid in an attempt to pressure Hamas to free more hostages.

The countries said they “strongly oppose the expansion of Israel’s military operations in Gaza. The level of human suffering is intolerable. Israel’s denial of essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population is unacceptable and risks breaching International Humanitarian Law.”

In addition, they said that the “basic quantity of food” to be allowed into Gaza “is wholly inadequate,” and that Israel must work with United Nations agencies. Israel and the U.S. have been working on an alternative mechanism to distribute aid rather than rely on U.N. agencies, which have not prevented Hamas from pocketing large quantities of aid and in some cases employed Hamas terrorists.

“If Israel does not cease the renewed military offensive and lift its restrictions on humanitarian aid, we will take further concrete actions in response,” the statement reads.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said in an interview with French radio station France Inter on Tuesday that “further concrete actions” could include supporting a push led by the Netherlands to cancel the EU-Israel Association Agreement, which would in effect downgrade relations between Jerusalem and Brussels. Canada and the U.K. would not be involved, as they are not EU member states.

France, the U.K. and Canada also spoke out against Israeli settlements in the West Bank, calling them illegal and saying they “will not hesitate to take further action, including sanctions.”  

In addition, they called to work towards a two-state solution, arguing that it is “the only way to bring long-lasting peace and security that both Israelis and Palestinians deserve.” 

The three countries said they “have always supported Israel’s right to defend Israelis against terrorism” and called on Hamas to release the 58 hostages held since Oct. 7, 2023, at least 20 of whom are thought to be alive.

A second statement from 23 countries, including most of the EU, plus Australia, Canada, the U.K., New Zealand, Norway and Japan, also called on Israel to “allow a full resumption of aid into Gaza immediately” and enable U.N. agencies to distribute it, and called for a two-state solution. The EU countries that did not sign the letter were Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Romania and Slovakia.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded that “the leaders in London, Ottawa and Paris are offering a huge prize for the genocidal attack on Israel on October 7 while inviting more such atrocities.”

“Israel accepts President [Donald] Trump’s vision and urges all European leaders to do the same,” he added. ”The war can end tomorrow if the remaining hostages are released, Hamas lays down its arms, its murderous leaders are exiled and Gaza is demilitarized. No nation can be expected to accept anything less and Israel certainly won’t. This is a war of civilization over barbarism. Israel will continue to defend itself by just means until total victory is achieved.”

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar shared on X a screenshot of a press release in which Hamas welcomed the countries’ threat, and added: “What a disgrace.”

French President Emmanuel Macron has been increasingly critical of Israel in recent weeks, calling Israel’s Gaza policies “shameful” and saying the EU should consider revoking its free trade agreement with Israel, to which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded that Macron is standing with Hamas. France is also spearheading, together with Saudi Arabia, a high-level meeting at the U.N. next month calling for a two-state solution.

Marine Le Pen, president of the far-fight French party National Rally, told i24 News on Monday that she is “very concerned about the distance that Emmanuel Macron is creating with Israel, if I may put it this way, precisely at the worst possible time. At a time when Israel is fighting a war against terrorism, when it needs the support of its friends, and France has traditionally been a friendly country toward Israel.”