Oct. 17 (UPI) — The federal shutdown will last at least a few more days as the Senate expects to hold no votes until Monday. Meanwhile, lawmakers are questioning the legality of how the Trump administration plans to pay the military.
Senate Republican leader John Thune of South Dakota sent senators home for the weekend, so the government will stay closed. The Senate will return at 3 p.m. Monday.
Three Democrats have voted for the Republican bills to reopen the government, but five more are needed to reach the 60 votes needed to pass the stopgap funding bill.
Meanwhile, some Republican senators are questioning the legality of President Donald Trump‘s move to shift Defense Department funds to pay for military paychecks during the shutdown.
They say they’re glad the service members are getting paid, but aren’t sure where the funds are coming from and whether the money shift is legal.
Normally, the White House would need to ask Congress to reappropriate federal funding, then the Appropriations Committee must approve it before moving funds around.
Senators interviewed by The Hill say they aren’t aware of any requests. Trump ordered Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to use “all available funds” to ensure troops got their paychecks.
“That’s a concern of not just appropriators, it seems broader than that,” an unnamed Republican senator told The Hill.
The lawmaker said Republican colleagues have asked the administration for more information about exactly which funds are getting shifted and what legal authority the White House is using to justify its action.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she wants more information from the White House.
“We’ve been given two different explanations. One, is that it’s unobligated balances. One, is that it’s taken from certain research and technology programs. But we don’t have the specifics. We have asked for the specifics,” Collins said.
Alaska’s Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said: “I get that they say for the military pay for this pay period it comes out of … research and development technology [fund] but where? Is that taking it from projects that we have already identified? Maybe something’s really important to me. Where’s it coming from? We haven’t seen that,” she said.
On Wednesday, Trump signed a memo expanding his administration’s authority to repurpose unspent funds to pay service members during the shutdown.
Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., said Trump’s reallocation of funds was, “probably not legal.” On Face the Nation on Sunday, he said the “White House’s understanding of United States law” was “pretty tentative to say the best.”
Can companies realistically pivot their manufacturing based on policy winds, or is this strategy more complicated than policymakers suggest?
As trade tensions escalate under US President Donald Trump, the reshoring narrative is becoming more complicated. While companies across virtually all industries once embraced the idea of bringing manufacturing closer to home—driven by pandemic-era lessons and shifting geopolitical alliances—a new wave of tariffs, market instability, and lingering cost concerns is muddying the waters.
“We know of a number of clients who paused their reshoring plans due to the speed of change for the tariff landscape in the second quarter of this year,” says Jonathan Todd, a partner at the Cleveland-based business law firm Benesch.
What started as a strategic conversation quickly became tactical. CEOs and CFOs, once confident in their playbooks, were now focused on managing cost volatility and nervous about making the wrong move.
“There’s cautious optimism among clients, but most remain in a wait-and-see posture.”
Jonathan Todd, partner at Benesch
Earlier this year, Benesch began hearing a familiar refrain from manufacturers: Plans were underway to ramp up US production.
Many had already started shifting supply chains during and after Trump’s first term, favoring nearshoring and “friendshoring” strategies that prioritized geographic and political proximity. At the time, Canada and Mexico overtook China as top US trading partners, recalls Todd.
“The reshoring theme of this administration was in part a further development out of that exercise in shifting global supply chains,” Todd says.
But The Optimism Didn’t Last
For some, that sentiment changed with the April 2 announcement of “reciprocal tariffs,” which “targeted some of those friendshoring countries to which supply chains moved,” Todd explains. Trump announced a universal tariff, starting at 10%, on all imports, along with higher tariffs on countries like China and Vietnam with large trade deficits. Aimed at countering what the administration called unfair trade practices, the move sparked global market turmoil, triggering stock drops and fears of a global recession.
As a result, reshoring is back in the spotlight for both an unpredictable US and an extra-cautious Europe, which responded with its own homegrown manufacturing renaissance. Some firms—on both continents—are forging ahead, seeing opportunity in the volatility. Others, spooked by fickle policy and thin margins, are holding back or doubling down on existing overseas relationships. The result is a reshoring push that is uneven, reactive, and far from guaranteed.
‘None Of These Is Written In Stone’
After Trump’s April 2 so-called “Liberation Day” announcement, tariffs on Chinese imports surged—some as high as 145%—and China retaliated with duties of up to 125% on US goods. Confusion reigned.
One of those caught in the policy crossfire was Lee Evans Lee, founder and CEO of Texas-based fashion brand Mrs Momma Bear.
Lee Evans Lee, Founder and CEO, Mrs Momma Bear
“I’m in a really exciting growth period,” Lee tells Global Finance. “So now you throw tariffs on top of that?”
In lower-margin industries like apparel, smaller firms rely on offshore production and point to high labor costs, domestic talent gaps, entrenched supply chain dependencies, and partnership loyalties—particularly in China—as reshoring deal-breakers. The economics of it simply don’t work.
As the tariff spat with China escalated, Lee huddled with her manufacturing partner Lever Style, which is based in Hong Kong. In addition to Mrs Momma Bear, this fashion supply chain firm works with some of the world’s biggest brands, including Hugo Boss, Ralph Lauren, and Uniqlo. As she recalls, one colleague held up the day’s newspaper with the bold headline on Trump’s tariff threat.
“Throw it away,” Lee told her colleague. “None of this is written in stone. I’m not going anywhere. I’m not changing any of the orders I’ve placed.”
Sticking with her existing supply chain was a risk—but one Lee was willing to take. “We don’t know what the markets are going to do,” she said. “But when everyone else pulls back, that might be our advantage. We’ve got a superior product—ultrahigh quality—and we’re standing firm on that.”
Her instincts were right. The administration ultimately pulled back: Trump retreated on the harshest tariff threats. Today, US duties on Chinese goods remain elevated at a combined 55%—a 30% blanket tariff plus the prior 25% on specific product categories.
Still, the whiplash left its mark. “A lot of people reacted to [tariffs] with fear,” says Lee.
When Tariffs Open Doors
But not every company is taking a defensive stance. Some, like KULR Technology Group, see the disruption as an opening to scale. Just days after Trump unveiled the sweeping tariffs, KULR announced a strategic partnership to distribute products from Berlin-based German Bionic, which specializes in advanced robotics and wearable exoskeletons used by logistics companies, health care providers, and construction workers.
The collaboration marks San Diego–based KULR’s expansion into a fast-growing sector: According to market research firm Spherical Insights, wearable robotics are estimated to become a $41.5 billion market by 2033. The stakes are high, considering German Bionic already serves a diverse global customer base, including Dachser Intelligent Logistics, GXO, Nuremberg Airport, Canadian Tire, UK electronics retailer Currys, and Berlin’s Charité Hospital.
Key to the partnership is German Bionic’s manufacturer, Taiwan-based electronics giant Wistron Corporation, a major supplier to companies like Nvidia. With ongoing expansion in Dallas, and existing facilities in San Jose, California, Wistron’s North American footprint could help sidestep trade friction as KULR scales production for the US market.
“[Wistron’s] medical group is focused on building exoskeleton products,” states KULR Technology Group CEO and co-founder Michael Mo. “That’s a perfect partner for us.”
As Mo sees it, that production could very well move to one of Wistron’s facilities in North America when the US market picks up.
“They already have the production line here,” Mo notes. “Sure, labor is more expensive; but when you work out the economics—yes, huge opportunities.”
Mo also sees long-term potential in defense applications. With units like Marine Corps logistics groups handling everything from ammunition to rations manually, the exoskeleton’s core strength—lifting and moving heavy loads—could be a natural fit. Having a domestic supply chain in place, he adds, would make the product even more appealing to US military clients.
“There’s a huge opportunity to serve the military with a technology like this,” Mo suggests.
In Europe, A Different Approach
While reshoring in the US is often driven by political messaging and tariff volatility, Europe is pursuing a more coordinated and policy-driven path. From the UK to Italy to Brussels, governments are rolling out strategic incentives to bring manufacturing back home—not just in response to trade friction, but as part of a long-term industrial policy reset.
In the UK alone, companies are expected to invest up to $650 billion in reshoring and nearshoring over the next three years, according to Capgemini, with projections of over 300,000 new jobs by 2025.
Italy, meanwhile, is offering decade-long tax breaks for firms relocating production to Italy from outside the EU. A report by Confindustria (the General Confederation of Italian Industry) found that 21% of firms that have adopted offshore production have already brought it back, with another 12% planning to do so in the next five years. And the EU is backing sector-specific initiatives—such as the European Chips Act and REPowerEU—to reduce dependency on other nations and boost capacity in semiconductors, green tech, and automation.
“Europe is looking for closer ties to get around the volatility,” says Andrew Husby, a senior economist at BNP Paribas. “What that’s likely to mean is a period of higher inflation over the near term.”
David Roche, Strategist, Quantum Strategy
Still, Europe’s reshoring strategy appears more deliberate—and potentially more durable. By contrast, US efforts are more fragmented, often swayed by election cycles and reactive policy shifts. High energy costs, labor shortages, and regulatory inconsistency continue to blunt American momentum.
“It’s not going to work for several reasons,” warns David Roche, strategist at Singapore-based research firm Quantum Strategy. “Trying to substitute US labor for foreign labor is just not economical. And tariffs—even if they settle at current levels—will keep harming growth, productivity, and the cost of making things in the United States.”
Uncertainty over future trade deals isn’t helping either, Roche adds. “There has to be a deal. It has to be signed.”
During Trump’s first term, the initial levies on steel and aluminum sparked a global backlash. “Trade wars are good, and easy to win,” Trump argued via tweet in 2018.
Apparently, “easy” is a relative term. Few trade deals have materialized ahead of Trump’s shifting deadlines (the latest set for August 1). Japan, Indonesia and the Philippines have agreements in place. Framework talks are also ongoing with the UK—where the US already ran an $11.9 billion trade surplus as of the end of 2024—and with China, which remains unresolved.
“Ultimately the [Covid-19] pandemic shed light on global supply chain fragility,” Husby says. “Companies have been aware it can benefit them to make sure supply chains are more aligned with where the end-market demand is.” In other words, manufacturers began shifting production closer to major consumer markets like the US, fueling interest in nearshoring to places like Mexico. “But what the new rounds of tariffs are doing,” Husby explains, “is injecting quite a bit more uncertainty into that.”
Indeed, many US companies remain on the fence about altering their manufacturing footprints. 3M, for example, is considering moving some production stateside. The Minnesota-based maker of Post-it notes and Scotch tape currently imports around $850 million in goods from Canada and Mexico.
Another Minnesota-based firm, Polaris, which relies on a Mexican facility and is known for its off-road vehicles, is considering a possible surcharge on its products rather than relocation. CEO Michael Speetzen, however, cautioned in March that reshoring is “not free, and it’s not easy,” adding that long-term tariff clarity would be needed before any firm commitment.
Foreign manufacturers are weighing similar moves. Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics are considering expanding their existing appliance-production facilities in South Carolina and Tennessee, respectively, by moving operations there from their Mexican factories. Hyundai Steel has confirmed its plan to build a new plant in Louisiana, and Volkswagen is exploring shifting some Audi and Porsche production to the US for the first time. Nissan has even warned it may move its Sentra production from Mexico to its existing factories in Mississippi.
One company already making reshoring official is Apple. In February, the iPhone maker announced that a new manufacturing facility in Houston was part of a broader $500 billion commitment to bring production back to American soil.
But we’ve heard this story before.
Over a decade ago, during the Obama administration, Apple CEO Tim Cook unveiled a $100 million “Made in the USA” Mac Pro factory in Austin, Texas. By 2019, production had quietly shifted back to China, with Apple citing the need for a cost-efficient, highly skilled workforce and more-robust infrastructure.
Skeptics expect a similar scenario for Apple’s Houston plant, which the California-based tech giant boasts “will create thousands of jobs,” without specifying the actual number.
That’s “not a lot and seems high for the size of the facility,” according to Harry Moser, president of the Reshoring Initiative, a group that tracks manufacturing returns to the US.
This latest Apple initiative is also the exception, he adds, not the trend.
Reshoring Momentum Wavers
According to the Reshoring Initiative’s June annual report, Asian companies are choosing to invest in US manufacturing more than companies from any other region. The top three countries in 2025 in terms of jobs are listed as South Korea, China, and Germany. But the motivations for reshoring are shifting fast.
Tariffs have emerged as a major driver, according to the report, cited in 454% more cases in 2025 than in 2024, as companies react to the new trade environment. Meanwhile, the influence of government incentives is fading, down 49% year over year as many pandemic-era subsidies phase out.
A more persistent challenge is the workforce. While US manufacturing apprenticeships have grown 83% over the past decade, the skilled-labor pipeline remains too narrow to support long-term reshoring at scale.
The outlook for the remainder of 2025 is mixed. Many large reshoring projects remain in limbo, contingent on clearer signals from Washington.
“There’s no question that some companies are delaying their [reshoring] decisions because of the tariffs—there’s a huge backlog,” observes Moser. The Reshoring Initiative, he says, is tracking 20-30 major announcements—billion-dollar, even $10 billion projects—in a variety of industries, including pharma and automotive.
But read between the lines, Moser adds: “They’re saying, ‘We’re going to do these things when it’s clear that the tariffs will last for an extended period of time.’”
Santa Barbara, California – Far away from US President Donald Trump’s public confrontations with elite universities like Harvard and Columbia, students at the bustling University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB) are finishing up their final exams under the sunny skies shining above the nearby beach.
Despite the distance and pleasant weather, students here still feel the cloud of uncertainty hanging over them, created by Trump’s rhetoric and policies towards foreign students.
“The overall mood across the room [among international students] is that people are looking for other options,” said Denis Lomov, a 26-year-old PhD student from Russia who has been at UCSB since 2022 studying climate change politics and energy transitions.
Since coming into office this year, the Trump administration has revoked the student visas of hundreds of foreign nationals, slashed funding for science and research programmes, arrested and tried to deport foreign nationals involved in pro-Palestine campus activism, and suspended student visa appointments.
For international students at universities like UCSB, where nearly 15 percent of all students are from outside the US, the rhetoric and policies have left students wondering about their futures in the country.
“It makes you wonder if maybe you’d rather go somewhere else,” Lomov told Al Jazeera, adding that he is still several years away from completing his PhD.
Like his fellow international students, he said he has started to consider whether his skills might be more valued in places like Canada or Europe after he finishes his programme.
“I think it’s the unpredictability of these policies that makes me fear about the future, both with me being a student, but also after I graduate,” he said.
Lack of certainty
The Trump administration’s actions against universities and foreign students have met mixed results in the courts.
On Monday, in one of the Trump administration’s first significant legal victories in those efforts, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit from Columbia University over the government’s cuts to the university’s federal funding, based on allegations that the university had not taken adequate steps to curb pro-Palestine activism in the name of combatting anti-Semitism on campus.
In another ruling, also on Monday, a judge extended a restraining order pausing Trump’s efforts to block incoming international students from attending Harvard as the case makes its way through the legal system. Trump has also threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status and has frozen more than $2.6bn in research grants. Harvard has also filed a lawsuit challenging those cuts.
Several universities in the UC system, including UCSB, have warned international students against travelling outside of the country, a restriction that poses serious complications for their academic work and their personal lives.
“People are considering whether they’ll be able to go home and visit their families during their programme,” said Anam Mehta, a US national and PhD student at UCSB.
“They’re being extra cautious about what they post online out of concern about being questioned at the airport,” added Mehta, who is also involved with the UAW 4811 academic workers union.
Student protesters gather inside their encampment on the Columbia University campus, on April 29, 2024, in New York. [Stefan Jeremiah via AP]
These concerns, he said, could also stymie the ability of international students to conduct field work in foreign countries, a common feature of graduate research, or attend academic conferences abroad.
Some students — and even university administrators themselves — have noted that it is difficult to keep up with the raft of policy announcements, media reports, lawsuits, and counter-lawsuits that have unfolded as Trump presses his attacks on higher education.
“There have been frequent changes and a lot of these policies have been implemented very quickly and without a lot of advanced notice,” Carola Smith, an administrator at Santa Barbara City College (SBCC), said, noting that prospective international students have reached out with questions about whether they are still able to study in the US.
Smith says that between 60 and 70 different national identities are represented on campus and that, in addition to international students paying higher tuition fees than US students, their presence on campus provides a welcome exposure to a wider variety of perspectives for their classmates and creates connections with people from other parts of the world.
With student visa appointments currently suspended, Smith predicted the number of foreign student enrollments could drop by as much as 50 percent in the coming year.
Shifting attitudes
The stress of keeping up with shifting developments has also been paired with a more abstract concern: that the US, once seen as a country that took pride in its status as a global destination for research and academics, has become increasingly hostile to the presence of foreign students.
“Harvard has to show us their lists [of foreign students]. They have foreign students, almost 31 percent of their students. We want to know where those students come from. Are they troublemakers? What countries do they come from?” Trump said in March.
The administration has also said that international students take university spots that could go to US students, in line with a more inward-looking approach to policy that sees various forms of exchange with other countries as a drain on the US rather than a source of mutual benefit.
“They’re arguing that they don’t need international students, that this is talent they should be cultivating here at home,” says Jeffrey Rosario, an assistant professor at Loma Linda University in southern California.
“You can see a throughline between this and their tariffs abroad, based on this form of economic nationalism that says the rest of the world is ripping us off,” added Rosario, who has written about the government’s history of trying to exert influence over universities.
For Lomov, the student from Russia, the atmosphere has him wondering if his skills might find a better home elsewhere.
“I left Russia because I didn’t feel welcome there, and my expertise wasn’t really needed. That’s why I left for the United States, because I knew the United States provides amazing opportunities for academics and research,” said Lomov.
“But now it feels like maybe I’m back in the same place, where I have to leave again.”
The leaders of the United Kingdom, France and Canada have “strongly opposed” the expansion of Israel’s military offensive in Gaza, threatening to “take concrete actions” if Israel does not cease its onslaught and lift restrictions on aid supply to the Palestinian enclave.
In a statement released on Monday, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said they also oppose settlement expansions in the occupied West Bank. Settler violence has surged in the occupied West Bank as the world’s focus has remained on Gaza. Nearly 1,000 Palestinians have been killed and thousands displaced in Israeli raids.
The statement comes weeks after the Netherlands urged the European Union (EU) to review a trade agreement with Israel as the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has intensified its bombardment of Gaza amid an aid blockade in place since March 2.
Western countries backed Israel’s right to self-defence when Netanyahu’s government launched a devastating offensive in Gaza on October 7, 2023. That offensive has killed more than 53,000 Palestinians and turned vast swathes of Gaza into rubble.
On Tuesday, the EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said that Israel has the right to defend itself, but its current actions go beyond proportionate self-defence.
So what steps might Western countries take against Israel, and has Israel’s latest Gaza onslaught forced them to change their position? Here is what you need to know:
What did the UK, France and Canada say?
The countries’ three leaders criticised Israel’s renewed Gaza offensive, while describing the “human suffering” of Palestinians in the coastal enclave as “intolerable”.
They also said that Israel’s announcement of letting some aid in was “wholly inadequate”.
“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 leaders’ statement said.
“The Israeli Government’s denial of essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population is unacceptable and risks breaching International Humanitarian Law.
“We condemn the abhorrent language used recently by members of the Israeli Government, threatening that, in their despair at the destruction of Gaza, civilians will start to relocate. Permanent forced displacement is a breach of international humanitarian law.”
The three Western leaders said that while they supported Israel’s right to defend itself following Hamas’s attack on October 7, “this escalation is wholly disproportionate”.
“We will not stand by while the Netanyahu Government pursues these egregious actions,” they said.
On Tuesday, the UK announced it would suspend trade talks with Israel over the Gaza war. It also imposed sanctions on settlers and organisations backing violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank.
Israel’s conduct in its war on Gaza and the government’s support for illegal settlements is “damaging our relationship with your government”, said British Foreign Secretary David Lammy.
Amid intense international pressure, Israeli authorities on Monday cleared nine aid trucks to enter Gaza, where harsh restrictions on food and aid have sparked accusations that Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war.
However, the United Nations’ relief chief Tom Fletcher called the entry of the trucks a “drop in the ocean”, adding that “significantly more aid must be allowed into Gaza”.
Fletcher on Tuesday warned that 14,000 Palestinian babies were at risk of dying in the next 48 hours if aid doesn’t reach them – a figure he called “utterly chilling”. Some half a million people in Gaza, or one in five Palestinians, are facing starvation due to the Israeli blockade.
Starving Palestinians have resorted to eating animal feed and flour mixed with sand, highlighting acute suffering among the 2.3 million people in Gaza.
The UN humanitarian office’s spokesman Jens Laerke said on Tuesday that about 100 more trucks have been approved by Israel to enter Gaza.
Shifting their focus to the occupied West Bank, the leaders of the UK, France and Canada said they opposed all attempts to expand Israeli settlements, as they are “illegal and undermine the viability of a Palestinian state and the security of both Israelis and Palestinians”.
“We will not hesitate to take further action, including targeted sanctions,” they said.
Yara Hawari, co-director of Al-Shabaka, the Palestinian Policy Network, says the statement by the UK, Canada, and France is “reflective of states wanting to backtrack and try and cover up their complicity”, highlighting that the situation in Gaza is the “worst that it has ever been” and that “the genocide is reaching new levels of cruelty and inhumaneness”.
“They can point to the statement and say, you know, well, we did … stand up against it,” Hawari told Al Jazeera, adding that none have stopped arms sales to Israel.
Hawari specifically referenced the UK’s role, saying it was “particularly complicit in this”. “There are reports coming out every day on how many weapons have been transferred from the UK to Israel over the course of the last 19 months,” she said.
Displaced Palestinians flee from Khan Younis, Gaza, amid the ongoing Israeli military offensive in the area, on Monday, May 19, 2025. [Abdel Kareem Hana/AP Photo]
What else have Western nations said?
Sweden’s Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard said on Tuesday that her country will push for EU sanctions against Israeli ministers because of insufficient steps to protect civilians in Gaza.
“Since we do not see a clear improvement for the civilians in Gaza, we need to raise the tone further. We will therefore now also push for EU sanctions against individual Israeli ministers,” Stenergard said in a statement.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot demanded that Israel’s “blind violence” and blockade of humanitarian assistance must come to an end.
On Monday, 24 countries, overwhelmingly European ones, issued a joint statement saying Israel’s decision to allow a “limited restart” of aid operations in Gaza must be followed by a complete resumption of unfettered humanitarian assistance.
It was signed by the foreign ministers of countries including Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands and the UK.
Meanwhile, the European Union’s top diplomat, Kallas, has decided to order a review of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, a free trade deal between the two regions.
Kallas told Al Jazeera that the Netherlands earlier this month had sought review of the Association Agreement, particularly Article 2 – which states that both parties must respect human rights.
The move has been backed by other member states, including Belgium, France, Portugal and Sweden.
Robert Patman, a professor of international relations at the University of Otago in New Zealand, says the recent criticism emanating from Western capitals was in part due to public pressure.
“I think there’s a sense that in liberal democracies, they can’t ultimately be indifferent to public concern about the situation … I think another factor is a perception among many countries that [US President Donald] Trump himself is getting impatient with the Netanyahu government,” he told Al Jazeera.
Patman explained that with many countries in the Global South having experienced colonialism before, they were quicker than the West to condemn Israel’s actions.
“They have a history of having to struggle for their own political self-determination, and given that experience, they can empathise with the Palestinians who’ve been denied the right,” he said.
Palestinian mourn their relatives who were killed in an Israeli army airstrike at the morgue of Al-Aqsa Hospital in Deir al-Balah on May 20, 2025. [Abdel Kareem Hana/AP Photo]
How has Israel responded?
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu on Monday criticised Carney, Macron and Starmer following their joint statement.
“By asking Israel to end a defensive war for our survival before Hamas terrorists on our border are destroyed and by demanding a Palestinian state, the leaders in London, Ottawa and Paris are offering a huge prize for the genocidal attack on Israel on 7 October while inviting more such atrocities,” he posted on X.
By asking Israel to end a defensive war for our survival before Hamas terrorists on our border are destroyed and by demanding a Palestinian state, the leaders in London, Ottowa and Paris are offering a huge prize for the genocidal attack on Israel on October 7 while inviting more…
— Benjamin Netanyahu – בנימין נתניהו (@netanyahu) May 19, 2025
Meanwhile, Israel’s far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich lashed out at the three leaders, saying his country “will not bow its head before this moral hypocrisy, antisemitism, and one-sidedness”.
In a post on X, Smotrich accused the three countries of “morally aligning themselves with a terrorist organisation”.
In particular, Smotrich took issue with the three countries saying they are “committed to recognising a Palestinian state”.
“They have gone so far as to seek to reward terrorism by granting it a state,” he said.
Netanyahu’s government and his far-right coalition partners have been vocal against the realisation of a sovereign Palestinian state despite broad international support for the so-called two-state solution.
What is ‘Operation Gideon’s Chariot’?
This major ground offensive, launched by Israel on the Gaza Strip on Sunday, came after days of intense bombardment that killed hundreds of Palestinians.
Since Sunday, more than 200 people have been killed in a relentless wave of strikes.
Major hospitals, including the Indonesian Hospital in northern Gaza, have been rendered nonoperational after attacks by Israeli forces. Medical professionals said it could lead to the deaths of thousands of sick and wounded people.
With the backing of Israel’s lethal air force, the operation is targeting both southern and northern Gaza.
The Israeli military said the offensive was launched to expand “operational control” in the Gaza Strip. Israel says its campaign also aims to free the remaining captives held in Gaza and defeat Hamas.
However, Netanyahu has been repeatedly criticised by segments of Israeli society, including captives’ families, for failing to prioritise their return. He has also rejected Hamas’s offers to end the war and free the captives.
Relatives of journalist Mohammed Amin Abu Dhaka, who was killed in Israeli attack on the town of Abasan al-Kebira, mourn after the body is taken from Nasser Hospital for funeral in Khan Yunis on May 20 [Hani Alshaer/Anadolu Agency]
How will the Western actions impact Israel, and what’s next?
Andreas Krieg, senior lecturer at the School of Security Studies at King’s College London, said that the threats from the UK, France and Canada against Israel set a precedent for other Western governments to emulate.
“While it will not have a direct impact on Israel’s behaviour on the ground, it widens the boundaries of discourse internationally and makes it easier for other governments to openly stand against Israeli atrocities,” he told Al Jazeera.
“Key to a change of behaviour in Israel, however, remains the United States,” he said. The US supplies the bulk of arms to Israel as well as providing diplomatic cover at the United Nations.
“Yet, there is a tangible erosion of consensus at play internationally as to the perception of Israel, which taints Israel increasingly as a rogue actor,” Krieg said.
Husam Zomlot, the Palestinian ambassador to the UK, told Al Jazeera that the “number one” thing the three countries could do was impose an arms embargo on Israel. “The UK has taken some measures to suspend some arms exports. It’s not enough. It has got to be full and comprehensive,” he said.
Zomlot also said that the states should act to ensure that “war criminals” were “held accountable”. “They must absolutely support our efforts at the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice,” he said.
Netanyahu and his former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant face ICC arrest warrant for war crimes, but some European nations have said that they won’t arrest them.
Francesca Albanese, the UN’s special rapporteur for the occupied Palestinian territories, questioned how the threatened sanctions would be targeted.
“Targeting whom? You need to impose sanctions on the state. It’s not about the prime minister. This is the entire government enterprise,” she told Al Jazeera.
Krieg from King’s College London says the reputational damage will affect Israel far beyond the current war in Gaza.
“It will be difficult to build consensus in the future around the narrative that Israel is an ‘ally’ because it is ‘the only democracy in the Middle East’,” he told Al Jazeera.
