Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar recently addressed the current diplomatic climate surrounding Israel at the United Nations, particularly during the 81st UN General Assembly in New York. He acknowledged Israel’s status as part of a diplomatic minority within the UN but disputed the notion that there exists a widespread international consensus against the nation.
Israel’s Long-standing UN Minority Status
Sa’ar expressed that Israel has faced a minority position at the UN for decades, a situation not unique to the present day. “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 remarked, emphasizing the persistent nature of this diplomatic reality. The recent General Assembly highlighted this issue, with numerous world leaders taking significant time to criticize Israeli policies regarding Gaza and the West Bank.
Choosing Between International Consensus and National Interests
Sa’ar posed a critical question regarding Israel’s future diplomatic strategy: “Should we base our policy regarding our existential interests on the international consensus, or should we favor our own existential interests?” He highlighted that despite Israel’s past efforts and significant concessions—such as the Oslo Accords and the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza—the expected benefits in terms of international support have not materialized. “Ultimately we receive no accumulated credit in the international system for these actions,” he commented, reinforcing his stance on the ineffectiveness of previous concessions.
The Growing Criticism and Regional Dynamics
The ongoing discussions at the General Assembly are occurring against a backdrop of increasing advocacy for Palestinian statehood from various nations. A collective statement from countries like Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia has further emphasized their commitment to a “sovereign, viable, and independent Palestinian State,” reiterating the significance of a two-state solution. Notably, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan also voiced strong criticisms of Israel’s actions, prompting Sa’ar to clarify his stance on Turkey’s evolving relationship with Israel. “I do not define Turkey as an enemy state,” he stated, but acknowledged the increasing diplomatic hostility from Turkey under Erdogan’s leadership.
Critique of Jordan’s Framing
Sa’ar also took issue with Jordan’s recent criticisms. He noted that King Abdullah II accused Israel of changing the situation in Gaza and the West Bank, yet he countered this by pointing out Jordan’s own historical actions, including the controversial 1988 decision to sever legal ties with West Bank residents. This move, he argued, stripped many of their citizenship and associated rights, rendering Jordan’s moral standing on the Palestinian issue questionable. “When it comes to international law and Palestinian rights, Jordan is perhaps one of the last countries that should be lecturing others,” he commented.
In summary, Sa’ar’s remarks during the UN General Assembly illustrate Israel’s ongoing diplomatic challenges and the complex dynamics at play with neighboring countries. His firm stance against caving to international pressure underscores a shift in Israel’s approach, focusing more on national interests in the face of mounting external criticisms. As global calls for Palestinian statehood resonate louder, how Israel navigates this intricate political landscape will be crucial for its future diplomatic endeavors.