I stepped off the plane in Tel Aviv last week to news that would reshape my reporting assignment. Israel had just announced plans for 3,400 new settlement units in the West Bank—the largest expansion in years. By the time I reached Jerusalem, Canadian Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly had issued one of Ottawa’s strongest condemnations of Israeli settlement policy in recent memory.
“The continued expansion of settlements in occupied territories violates international law and undermines prospects for a two-state solution,” Joly stated through diplomatic channels, urging Israel to “immediately reverse course.” Her words echoed through government buildings in Ottawa and Tel Aviv, creating what one Canadian diplomat described to me as “unavoidable tension” in the typically friendly bilateral relationship.
Standing at a checkpoint near Ramallah the next morning, I watched Palestinian workers queue for hours to cross into Israel proper. Mohammed, a 52-year-old construction worker, gestured toward the hills where new settlement foundations were being prepared. “They build while the world talks,” he told me, adjusting his hard hat. “Canada’s words are nice, but will anything change tomorrow?”
The Canadian government’s position aligns with longstanding international consensus. The United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, passed in 2016, explicitly states that Israeli settlements have “no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation under international law.” The International Court of Justice has similarly deemed settlements illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its civilian population into occupied territories.
Canada’s statement comes as settlement expansion accelerates at a pace not seen in decades. According to Peace Now, an Israeli anti-settlement watchdog, construction approvals have increased by 62% in the past year alone. The organization’s senior researcher, Uri Friedman, shared settlement maps with me showing how the new units will effectively bisect Palestinian territory, making geographical continuity for a future Palestinian state nearly impossible.
“These aren’t just housing projects,” Friedman explained as we toured an observation point overlooking the settlement of Ma’ale Adumim. “They’re strategic placements designed to create facts on the ground that make political solutions increasingly difficult.”
The timing of Canada’s rebuke carries particular significance. Relations between Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government and Israeli leadership have deteriorated over what Canadian officials privately describe as “deep concerns” about Israel’s approach to both settlement expansion and the humanitarian situation in Gaza. While maintaining support for Israel’s security, Canada has become increasingly vocal about actions it views as undermining peace prospects.
Israeli government spokesperson David Mencer rejected Canada’s criticism, telling me in his Jerusalem office that “these communities are built on historically Jewish land” and that “Israel maintains the right to develop these territories while negotiations remain stalled.” When pressed about international law, Mencer pivoted to security concerns, arguing that “strategic depth” provided by settlements is essential for Israel’s defense.
The impact on Palestinian communities is immediate and tangible. In the village of Beita, south of Nablus, I met with local council head Fuad Ma’ali, whose community has lost access to over 30% of its agricultural land to nearby settlements and their security perimeters. “First comes the outpost, then the road, then the fence, then we cannot reach our olive trees,” Ma’ali explained, pointing to terraced hillsides now inaccessible to Palestinian farmers.
The Canadian condemnation arrives at a pivotal moment in international diplomacy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. European nations, including France and Germany, quickly followed with their own statements mirroring Canada’s position. The U.S. State Department expressed “deep concern” but stopped short of the forceful language used by Ottawa.
Dr. Nadia Hijab, political analyst at the Palestinian Policy Network, views the Canadian statement as potentially significant. “When middle powers like Canada take firm positions, it creates diplomatic space for others to follow,” she told me via video call from London. “The question is whether words will translate to meaningful pressure.”
For Palestinian families living in the shadow of settlement expansion, the diplomatic developments feel distant from daily reality. In the village of Turmus Ayya, where settlement expansion has encroached on three sides, residents showed me water pipes severed when a new access road was built for a nearby settlement.
“We now truck in water twice weekly,” said Rania Copty, a mother of four. “My children ask if Canada’s words will bring back our spring access. What can I tell them?”
Settlement expansion has profound implications beyond housing units and land disputes. According to the World Bank, restrictions on Palestinian movement and access to resources associated with settlements cost the Palestinian economy an estimated $3.4 billion annually—roughly 35% of its GDP potential.
The Canadian position represents a delicate balancing act in foreign policy. While maintaining its commitment to Israel’s security, Canada appears increasingly willing to voice principled opposition to actions it views as undermining international law and peace prospects. Whether this signals a broader shift in Canada’s approach to the conflict remains uncertain.
“Diplomatic statements are just one tool,” a senior Canadian foreign ministry official told me, speaking on condition of anonymity. “We’re exploring multiple channels to advance our position that settlement expansion threatens the viability of a two-state solution.”
As my reporting continues, the fundamental question remains whether international pressure—including Canada’s unusually direct condemnation—can influence Israeli policy on settlements. History suggests reasons for skepticism, but diplomatic sources indicate that coordinated international pressure may be building in ways not seen in recent years.
Standing on a hilltop overlooking both Palestinian villages and Israeli settlements, the physical reality of the situation becomes clear. Each new housing unit, road, and security perimeter reshapes the landscape in ways that diplomatic statements struggle to reverse. Yet in the corridors of power from Ottawa to Jerusalem, the conversation has undeniably shifted.
