Saar at the UN Security Council — Russia’s tough response and diplomatic resonance

At the UN Security Council meeting on February 19, 2026, dedicated to criticizing the actions of the Israeli government in Judea and Samaria, Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar delivered an emotional and harsh response to the position of the Russian delegation.

The Russian representative spoke about international law, occupation, annexation of territories, and the need for a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Sa’ar’s response did not follow the usual diplomatic tone.

“It was quite amusing to hear the Russian representative talk about law and international law, about occupation, annexation of territories, and peaceful resolution of the conflict. I must admit, I had to restrain myself from laughing out loud during the speech,” said the head of the Israeli Foreign Ministry.

The phrase instantly went beyond the meeting room.

Political context and hidden subtext

Why Sa’ar’s words caused a resonance

The speech was a reaction to the criticism of Israeli policy in Judea and Samaria. The Russian side raised issues of international law and the status of the territories at the meeting.

Sa’ar’s rhetoric sounded like a direct hint at double standards. In the context of Russia’s ongoing war against Ukraine, such statements are perceived in Israel and the West as a demonstrative dissonance between Moscow’s words and actions.

The editorial staff of NAnovosti — Israel News | Nikk.Agency notes that the minister’s statement became one of the most quoted fragments of the meeting. In diplomatic practice, such irony from the UN Security Council podium is rare.

Informational reaction on the network

The video of the minister’s speech quickly spread on social networks. Comments were divided: some supported Israel’s tough stance, while others pointed to the growing tension in international dialogue.

In the expert community, the discussion is not so much about the emotionality of the statement as about its strategic signal. Israel demonstrates its readiness to publicly challenge the legitimacy of criticism from states that themselves are accused of violating international law.

What this means for Israel and the international agenda

Sa’ar’s speech fits into a broader trend — the strengthening of direct rhetoric on international platforms. The UN Security Council is increasingly becoming a space not only for formal statements but also for open political confrontations.

For Israel, such statements are a signal to the domestic audience about the strong defense of the national position. For external partners, it is a reminder that diplomacy is no longer limited to dry formulations.

The meeting ended without resolutions but with a clear media effect. And it is this effect that is now shaping the further discussion around the status of Judea and Samaria, the role of the UN, and the positions of key global players.