Sa’ar rejects claim of global consensus against Israel, says UN majority cannot dictate policy

Israeli Foreign Minister Rejects International Consensus Narrative, Emphasizes Policy Based on Existential Interests

Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar acknowledged that Israel presently occupies a diplomatic minority within the United Nations, yet rejected the notion of a widespread international consensus opposing Israel.

During remarks to The Jerusalem Post ahead of the 81st United Nations General Assembly in New York, Sa’ar stated that Israel has remained in a minority position for decades.

“We were in the minority a year ago. We were in the minority two years ago, ten years ago, twenty years ago, and forty years ago,” he emphasized.

The opening day of this year’s General Assembly underscored Sa’ar’s point, as numerous world leaders dedicated substantial portions of their addresses to criticizing Israel’s policies in Gaza and the West Bank.

< FIGCaption class="article-image-caption article-image-credit">Gideon Sa’ar with a Columbia’s incoming Foreign Minister Omar Bola. (credit: FOREIGN MINISTRY)

According to Sa’ar, prior Israeli concessions have failed to generate enduring diplomatic recognition.

‘We have reached a point where we cannot make concessions’

He referenced the Oslo Accords, the establishment of the Palestinian Authority, and Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005 as emblematic measures that, in his assessment, yielded diminishing diplomatic dividends.

“Ultimately we receive no accumulated credit in the international system for these actions,” he noted.

Sa’ar said Israel had reached a point where it could no longer continue making concessions simply because of international pressure.

The comments arise as several countries maintain calls for Palestinian statehood at the UN. A joint statement issued on Tuesday by the foreign ministers of Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates reaffirmed support for a “sovereign, viable, and independent Palestinian State” and called for implementation of a two‑state framework.

One of the nations that criticized Israel was Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Sa’ar clarified that he does not label Turkey as an “enemy state,” emphasizing that the distinction carries practical implications.

“I do not define Turkey as an enemy state,” he declared. “Yet I cannot disregard the fact that Turkey under Erdogan’s leadership pursues a policy hostile toward Israel in the diplomatic arena, extending into economic and legal realms.”

Sa’ar observed that relations between Israel and Turkey have, over decades, trended negatively and have intensified during Erdogan’s tenure.

He further highlighted tensions arising from Turkey’s rapport with Hamas, citing recent sharp exchanges.

In July, Sa’ar condemned Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan’s remarks about Israel, labeling them a “clear call for genocide.”

Sa’ar expressed similar disapprovement toward statements made by Jordanian King Abdullah II at the General Assembly.

The Jordanian monarch accused Israel of altering realities in Gaza and the West Bank through settlement expansion, land acquisitions, and what he described as de facto annexation.

Sa’ar responded that Israel is “not particularly impressed” with Jordanian moralizing on the Palestinian issue.

“I merely wish to remind you that, concerning international law and Palestinian rights, Jordan appears among the last nations entitled to lecture others,” he added.

He specifically referenced Jordan’s 1988 decision to sever legal and administrative ties granting West Bank residents Jordanian citizenship, describing the move as depriving many individuals of citizenship and associated rights.

Sa’ar deemed the action contrary to international law and urged consideration of such factors when evaluating Jordanian critique of Israel on legal matters.

Sa’ar also critiqued a coalition of states that have coalesced around unified diplomatic messaging against Israel.

While acknowledging that some of these countries originally rallied around objectives Israel supported—amending the Gaza conflict and securing hostage releases—the commentator warned:

“But when examined closely, that same bloc routinely issues joint statements systematically criticizing Israel.”

Source link