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

Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar acknowledged that Israel currently finds itself in a diplomatic minority at the United Nations but rejected the characterization that there is a broad international “consensus” against Israel.

Speaking to The Jerusalem Post during the ongoing 81st United Nations General Assembly in New York, Sa’ar said Israel had been in a minority position at the UN 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,” Sa’ar said.

The opening day of this year’s General Assembly highlighted Sa’ar’s point, as a series of world leaders devoted significant portions of their speeches to criticism of Israel’s policies in Gaza and the West Bank.

“We need to ask ourselves whether we should base our policy regarding our existential interests on the international consensus, or, even if it is not a total international consensus, on the majority view within the international system, or according to our own existential interests,” Sa’ar said.

According to Sa’ar, Israel’s past concessions have not translated into lasting diplomatic credit.

'We have reached a point where we cannot make concessions'

He cited the Oslo Accords, the establishment of the Palestinian Authority and Israel’s 2005 unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip as examples of far-reaching Israeli steps that, in his view, did not produce the expected diplomatic benefits.

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

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

“We have reached a point where we cannot make concessions,” he said.

The comments come as several countries continue to promote 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 world leaders who criticized Israel was Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Sa’ar said he did not currently define Turkey as an “enemy state,” stressing that the term is an official designation with practical consequences.

“I do not define Turkey as an enemy state,” he said. “But I cannot ignore the fact that Turkey under Erdogan’s leadership is pursuing a policy hostile toward Israel in the diplomatic arena, including moves in the economic and legal spheres.”

Sa’ar said relations between Israel and Turkey had unfortunately been moving in a negative direction for decades and had intensified during Erdogan’s years in power.

He also pointed to Turkey’s relationship with Hamas as a significant element in Israel’s concerns.

Israel and Turkey have exchanged increasingly sharp accusations in recent months. In July, Sa’ar condemned comments by Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan regarding Israel, calling them a “clear call for genocide.”

Sa’ar was similarly critical of Jordanian statements at the General Assembly.

King Abdullah II used his UNGA address to accuse Israel of changing realities in Gaza and the West Bank, including through settlement expansion, land seizures and what he described as de facto annexation.

Israel was 'not particularly impressed' by 'Jordanian moralizing'

The Jordanian king also criticized Israeli actions in Syria, describing what he called Israel’s regional “appetite” as a threat and saying Syria was a warning sign.

Sa’ar said Israel was “not particularly impressed” by what he called Jordanian moralizing on the Palestinian issue.

“I just want to remind you that, when it comes to international law and Palestinian rights, Jordan is perhaps one of the last countries that should be lecturing others,” he said.

He referred specifically to Jordan’s 1988 decision to sever the legal and administrative ties that had granted West Bank residents Jordanian citizenship, arguing that the move deprived many people of citizenship and associated rights.

Sa’ar characterized the decision as contrary to international law and said it should be considered when evaluating Jordanian criticism of Israel on international-law issues.

Sa’ar also criticized what he described as a bloc of countries that has increasingly coordinated its diplomatic messaging against Israel.

He acknowledged that some of these countries initially came together around goals Israel could support, including ending the Gaza war and securing the release of the hostages.

“But if you look at it, that same bloc frequently issues joint statements systematically criticizing Israel,” he said.