Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar has spent nearly two years leading a campaign to encourage foreign governments to move their embassies to Jerusalem, a move he views as critical to shaping Israel’s international standing amid increasingly complex geopolitical pressures. His efforts reflect a broader strategy aimed at securing Israel’s diplomatic recognition, which he considers a key element of national security alongside ongoing military conflicts.
Colombia is set to become the 10th country to establish its embassy in Jerusalem, with an agreement also reached with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, although no opening date has been announced. Sa’ar notes that when he assumed office, Jerusalem hosted about half as many embassies as it does today. He attributes this growth to deliberate focus and persistent diplomacy, emphasizing that expanding Jerusalem’s diplomatic presence was a clear objective of his tenure.
Sa’ar frames the debate over embassy locations as a contest between competing narratives. He insists that Jerusalem’s status as the ancient, undivided capital of the Jewish people is foundational to Israel’s claims, contrasting this with alternative narratives that call for dividing the city. Moving embassies, he acknowledges, is not an easy decision for foreign governments due to potential backlash from Palestinians, Arab states, and the broader international community. Nevertheless, he believes that each decision to relocate strengthens Israel’s position.
His diplomatic approach includes cultivating relationships long before leaders assume power, citing early discussions with Colombia’s president-elect and outreach to officials in countries such as Nauru and Slovenia. Sa’ar emphasizes the need for Israel to balance concessions with firm demands in negotiations.
Relations with the United Kingdom, however, illustrate the challenges Israel faces. Sa’ar describes ties with the British government under the Labour Party as at an “unprecedented low,” particularly following London’s sanctions related to Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Israel responded by closing the British Consulate in east Jerusalem, restricting British diplomats, and declaring several UK officials persona non grata. Sa’ar dismisses these actions as symbolic, asserting they were necessary to counter what he describes as a pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel stance, and to preserve Israel’s relevance in the region. He also notes that opposition parties in the UK have criticized Labour’s policy, suggesting potential shifts with future governments.
Turning to Iran, Sa’ar rejects the notion that Tehran has gained diplomatic strength amid regional upheaval. He points to widespread international measures targeting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, reduced diplomatic ties, Iran’s internal repression, and its destabilizing activities in the Middle East as indicators of weakening influence. Nonetheless, Sa’ar acknowledges ongoing pragmatic engagement between Iran and other countries, noting that international relations are ultimately driven by interests. While he does not foresee a near-term return to negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, he remains open to changes in the situation. Preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons remains Israel’s highest priority, he stated, and the country is prepared to act if necessary.
Sa’ar also addressed regional security concerns posed by the Houthi movement, describing it as a serious threat but rejecting the idea that Israel should assume responsibility for every Middle Eastern conflict. He highlighted Israel’s efforts to weaken the Houthis but stressed the limits of its role in broader regional crises.
Latin America stands out as a region where Sa’ar sees opportunities for expanded diplomatic influence. He designated the current year as the “Year of Latin America” for the Foreign Ministry, noting progress in countries such as Colombia and Honduras, where Israel has deepened ties through medical, agricultural, and water-related projects. He credits early, proactive diplomacy for recent gains, underscoring the importance of cultivating relationships before leaders take office.
In Europe, Sa’ar has called for cautiously engaging with some right-wing political parties. He recently praised Austrian Freedom Party leader Herbert Kickl for acknowledging Austria’s Nazi past and expressing positive views toward Israel, marking a potential opening for dialogue despite longstanding concerns about the party’s ideological background. Sa’ar stressed that dialogue does not equate to normalization but represents a willingness to listen and evaluate.
Throughout his time as foreign minister, Sa’ar has sought to strengthen Israel’s diplomatic infrastructure, increasing the ministry’s budget and opening new missions while enhancing public diplomacy efforts. He argues that alongside military defense, diplomacy plays a critical role in Israel’s future, shaping the international environment in which the country operates. Responding to international criticism and cultural portrayals he finds hostile, Sa’ar asserted that the government cannot control every negative depiction but must focus on the broader contest over Israel’s image and legitimacy.
For Sa’ar, the diplomatic arena is not secondary to military concerns but a parallel front that will influence Israel’s leverage after hostilities subside, underscoring the integral relationship between Israel’s battlefield outcomes and its global diplomatic standing.