High Minded Rhetoric and Empty Gestures: The Joint Statement on the Occupied Palestinian Territories

One of the most powerful quotes I have seen about international relations did not come from seasoned veterans of the halls of power that I navigated for years, but rather from one of the best writers on television.

Dan Harmon’s seminal show Community featured an episode where two student teams were competing in a Model United Nations face-off to see who could best emulate the reality of its modus operandi.

Near the end of the episode, the competition judge handed victory to the winning team, shooting down the losing team as being too logical and based in common sense “A logical, effective, common sense move[]. One which flies in the very face of the United Nations itself, a fundamentally symbolic organization founded on the principles of high-minded rhetoric and empty gestures.”
This quote, particularly the last sentence, was the first thing that came to my mind when I read the joint statement on the Occupied Palestinian Territories issued yesterday by the UK and a collection of European and Western governments, and Japan.

The Statement

Calling for an end to the war in Gaza, decrying the suffering of civilians, and tiptoeing around criticism of Israel, the statement urges all parties to refrain from killing civilians and abide by international humanitarian law.

It uses a passive voice when condemning the killing of over 800 Palestinian civilians stating “It is horrifying that over 800 Palestinians have been killed while seeking aid,” making it unclear whether they had been killed by bullets or sunstroke under the powerful summer sun.

It does, to be fair, actively condemn the territorial and demographic change under way in Gaza and Palestine, wagging its finger rather ineffectually at Israel as it implements its territorial plans unimpeded by any real measures on the ground.

It then ends by stating that the signatories are prepared to take ‘further’ action to support immediate ceasefires and secure a path to peace.

For Whom?

One of the most important aspects of statements, briefings, or even general content is identifying the audience. This statement appears to be aimed at no one in particular. The effectively involved parties are all either ignoring it or dismissing it while they engage on the ground.

Analysts and pundits are trying to find the incentive behind publishing the joint statement, and whether it adds anything of value to the plethora of statements issued over the past 18 months as the war waged on.

Israel remains unconcerned beyond dismissing the validity of the statement, the U.S. appears to have entirely ignored it while Egypt and Qatar remain engaged in mediation efforts along with the U.S..

Why?

The next key element of issuing a joint statement is the reason for it. Why was it issued? What goal does it seek to fulfil? What exactly is it geared to achieve?

Beyond reminding observers and actors that the signatories exist, there seems to be little to no endgame. It does not add anything to the information ecosystem, it does not reference any concrete measures, repercussions or consequences for violations of international humanitarian law.

The statement is essentially toothless.

However, it may have something to do with the statement issued by the Hague Group in Colombia last week. This group which comprises states from the Global South, was established in January to pursue the cases levied against Israel in the International Court of Justice and against Netanyahu and Gallant (the former defense minister of Israel) in the International Criminal Court.

The Hague Group statement was more forceful in calling for specific measures, yet equally ineffective due to the low engagement by global heavyweights like China, Russia and India, and key regional actors like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

The timing of the joint statement by the UK and its partners seems to be the Global North’s response to the statement by the Global South. Essentially, it is to remind whoever is listening that the signatories are also aware of the existence of international law and its ongoing violations in Palestine.

Compare and Contrast

This toothless joint statement may also be construed as another European attempt to regain the crumbs of credibility that it has squandered over the past two years.

French president Macron stated during his keynote speech at the Shangri La Dialogue last month that consistency in application of international law was key to retaining credibility. In issuing this statement, to which France is also a signatory, Europe appears to be feebly attempting to implement this principle without actually implementing it.

The timing, as it were, is rather inopportune. Only three days ago, the EU adopted the 18^th package of sanctions against Russia, targeting energy, banking, and military production. That package is extensive and builds on the previous 17 packages that Europe adopted over the past three years.

This sanctions package shows that when there is political will, Europe is capable of taking concrete action. And that is where dichotomy lies. Where the Russia sanctions leveraged the continent’s economic and political weight, the joint statement does little more than call for respect for international law and urge the parties to abide by it.

Instead of adding to Europe’s much sought after credibility, it highlights its absence.

Closing Thoughts

The statement is weak, ineffectual and poorly timed. It shows disunity in European ranks with the absence of many EU member states despite the signature of the EU Commissioner for Equality, Preparedness and Crisis Management.

However, it does build on the individual positions of the signatories, many of which have reduced elements of their cooperation with Israel due to grave and consistent human rights violations and violations of international law. Others have recognized Palestine, and others yet have pushed for a review of the association agreement between Israel and the EU , which has yet to deliver an outcome.

The EU’s inability to take concrete collective action despite the geopolitical urgency of repositioning itself as a credible and effective global actor highlights the challenges the continent is facing in redefining its global role.

This statement simply does not pass muster. It adds nothing to the global conversation, proposes no concrete actions, and adds little to the credibility, authority or role of the signatories.