Gideon Sa’ar was provided with a rare opportunity to meet directly with counterparts from foreign ministries across 27 countries.

By Nissan Strauchler, Israel Israel Hayom via JNS

The E.U.-Israel Association Council meeting in which Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar participated this past week was nothing short of a diplomatic summit. It provided Israel’s senior diplomat a rare opportunity to meet directly with counterparts from foreign ministries across 27 countries—presenting Israel’s positions without intermediaries while gauging European perspectives.

Following a series of preliminary meetings with several foreign ministers, Sa’ar entered discussions on the agreement defining Israel-European Union relations.

The meeting’s significance extends beyond the E.U. being Israel’s largest trading partner and second-largest investor—it comes after numerous postponements and attempts by countries hostile to Israel, including Ireland, Spain and Slovenia, to threaten suspension of the association agreement over alleged “human rights violations in Gaza and the West Bank.”

The importance of this agreement to the Israeli economy and foreign relations cannot be overstated.

One immediate outcome was the renewal of subcommittee operations—a central component of the relationship framework that had been suspended due to anti-Israel pressure. “This is of great importance to the State of Israel,” Sa’ar said in his first interview immediately following the Association Council meeting near European Union headquarters in Brussels.

The meeting occurred during a dramatic month when it appeared the United States might be withdrawing from Europe, potentially forcing the continent to confront the Russian threat independently. This shift carries significant implications for Israel-E.U. relations. “The increasing defense budgets across the continent create diverse opportunities for our defense industries,” Sa’ar noted.

The meeting’s timing—convenient for Israel and under the leadership of E.U. foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, who replaced Josep Borrell and his hostile policies toward Israel—represents a diplomatic achievement.

“Israel’s standing vis-à-vis the European Union is significantly improving in our favor due to three major developments,” Sa’ar explained. “First is Borrell’s term ending and Kaja Kallas taking over with her pragmatic approach to Israel. Another important element is the victory of Israel’s friend Friedrich Merz in the German election.

“The third and most significant factor is Donald Trump’s election as U.S. president, which enhances Israel’s standing internationally—many countries now wish to benefit from Israel’s excellent connections with the White House,” Sa’ar said.

However, the close Israel-U.S. relationship can also create disagreements, as evidenced by Israel’s vote against Ukraine at the U.N. this week, where Israel and the U.S. appeared in opposition alongside Russia, North Korea and Belarus.

“Initially, the U.S. proposal to end the war was worded in a way that Europe could unite behind it. Europe’s involvement in the Russia-Ukraine conflict is not appropriate—agreements must be found,” Sa’ar explained, detailing the vote’s context.

“Even when we supported Ukraine at the U.N. and provided humanitarian aid, we faced criticism for not supplying weapons. We coordinate with the U.S., while most European countries, except Hungary and the Czech Republic, typically vote against us. I don’t know anyone else willing to cast a veto for us at the Security Council.”

Since Oct. 7, 2023, the European Union and its officials have expressed support for Israel’s right to self-defense, with allies such as Hungary, the Czech Republic and Germany remaining particularly consistent.

The anti-Israel bloc

However, an anti-Israel bloc exists: Ireland, Spain and other nations have repeatedly condemned Israel and attempted to pressure Union institutions to end the war on Hamas’s terms.

The 27 E.U. countries required two months of difficult negotiations to establish their position before meeting with Israel. While the resulting document criticizes conditions in Gaza and Judea and Samaria and demands progress toward a two-state solution, it seeks to advance cooperation with Israel, condemns Iran, and commends Jerusalem on several issues.

“Despite criticism on the Palestinian issue, the meeting itself was productive. On Iran, for example, following Tehran’s assistance to Russia, there’s growing European understanding of the Iranian threat. During discussions, I emphasized our other shared challenges: combating terrorism, radical Islam, and broadly, hatred and hostility toward the West,” said Sa’ar, also addressing Europe’s political upheaval.

“Europe is experiencing these shifts, and it’s affecting their politics,” he explained. “Many countries are moving rightward politically. While Europe remains fixated on the two-state solution, continental nations now recognize the problems with the Palestinian Authority paying salaries to terrorists, incitement against Israel, and the fundamental threat posed by Hamas.

“Regarding UNRWA, alongside continuing support, several countries have suspended funding. The push to recognize the Palestinian Authority has also stalled due to our diplomatic efforts.”

Like religious edicts

Another sensitive issue involves the International Criminal Court in The Hague and its actions against Israel, particularly delicate within the E.U., which considers itself deeply committed to international judicial institutions.

“These institutions’ decisions are treated in Europe almost like religious edicts, yet cracks are appearing due to the double standards applied to Israel,” Sa’ar said. “Hungary announced it won’t comply with the warrant[issued for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu], France grants the prime minister immunity, the Czech Republic will soon discuss the matter, and even the new German chancellor has invited the prime minister to visit.”

Sa’ar revealed a diplomatic victory: “In the draft position paper for the Union meeting, they wanted to include language mandating compliance with court arrest warrants. Through effective diplomatic work, we replaced this with a general statement about respecting international institutions.”

The foreign minister also addressed Syria’s new regime. “Europe wants to establish dialogue for returning migrants and refugees to their country,” he explained, describing continental capitals’ motivation. “We’re here to present the reality: Radical Islamic organizations are operating there. Our realistic assessment led Europeans to make their sanctions-removal process gradual and reversible.”

Sa’ar emphasized the importance of direct engagement: “On Middle East issues, nobody will advocate for us. Today I met with the Belgian foreign minister and explained the conflict’s roots. There’s a growing receptiveness to our perspective.”

That same Belgian foreign minister, Maxime Prévot, was first to speak at the Israel meeting, offering substantial criticism. Slovenia and Spain also featured prominently in criticism.

Ireland

Ireland predictably joined this group, though E.U. sources were surprised by its representatives’ relatively measured tone, with some believing Dublin may be seeking improved relations with Israel.

Sa’ar, who closed Israel’s embassy in Ireland, remains unmoved: “Ireland isn’t the only country criticizing Israel, but it’s the only one with overwhelming consensus against us. In Spain, the opposition supports us. In Ireland, the entire political system is biased against Israel. I assessed the complete picture and saw no prospect for productive dialogue, so I closed the embassy.”

One significant announcement during Sa’ar’s visit was lifting boycotts on far-right parties in Spain, France, and Sweden.

“Europe is experiencing a desire to preserve national identity, cultural heritage, and address immigration-related threats including terrorism and radicalism,” he explained. “Within the rising right, there are various factions. The classic, established conservative right faces the challenge of retaining voters against more radical right-wing alternatives. We’re analyzing these developments proactively rather than reactively.”

Sa’ar detailed the decision-making behind lifting boycotts on parties previously linked to nationalism, antisemitism, and in some cases fascist and neo-Nazi connections:

“We conducted thorough assessments of all nationalist, populist and radical right-wing parties, examining whether meaningful dialogue was possible. We evaluated their histories against two key criteria: their current stance toward Israel, and evidence of antisemitism, Holocaust denial, or pro-Nazi positions among leadership and membership. After careful review, we identified three European parties for potential relationship development: the National Rally in France (Marine Le Pen’s party), the Sweden Democrats, and Spain’s Vox party.”

He also addressed parties Israel will not engage with: “Alternative for Germany” and the Austrian Freedom Party, both currently at political peaks in their countries.

“Certain aspects still concern us,” Sa’ar said. “We have responsibilities to past, present and future. We’re monitoring these movements closely. Some right-wing European parties are actively working to eliminate antisemitism, while others remain uncommitted to values we consider essential. Simultaneously, we’re addressing other concerns about policies that restrict Jewish life, such as bans on kosher slaughter and circumcision—we’re working to ensure continued Jewish community viability across Europe.”

Judea and Samaria

A persistent challenge for the foreign minister is the exclusion of Judea and Samaria from E.U. agreements.

“Changing the Union’s perspective will require substantial effort. We maintain our position while understanding the E.U.’s different view. Within Europe, some voices—particularly on the right—no longer accept the ‘sanctity of the Green Line,’ though they remain a minority outside the European consensus. We’re working to bring European parliamentarians who are open to dialogue to visit Samaria, helping them understand our security challenges and why Green Line borders provide inadequate protection.”

Sa’ar, who previously declared he would never join a Netanyahu-led government, has rapidly become a central figure in the administration.

Despite facing significant criticism for this reversal, he stands by his decision: “I received considerable criticism, but I’m convinced my choice was correct. Since joining the government, we’ve experienced events of historic magnitude in an incredibly short time frame. I participate in security consultations at the highest levels and contribute to the nation’s most critical decisions. The thought that I might have remained on the sidelines during these historic developments only reinforces my conviction that I acted correctly.”

According to Sa’ar, the prime minister grants him substantial autonomy, despite Netanyahu retaining ultimate responsibility for foreign policy and U.S. relations.

“The prime minister provides me significant operational freedom. Regarding U.S. relations, I’ve served in multiple governments, and the prime minister has always directed that relationship from his office. Simultaneously, I maintain productive dialogue with senior [U.S.] administration officials, which we’ll continue developing to advance Israel’s interests.”

Originally published by Israel Hayom.