Israel asserts historic Jewish rights as Western powers excuse Palestinian illegality and pressure Jewish sovereignty.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar delivered a forceful rebuke Wednesday to a bloc of Western governments criticizing Israel’s decision to approve new Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria—exposing what Jerusalem views as selective morality and discriminatory double standards.
“Israel strongly rejects the statement issued by foreign countries,” Sa’ar declared, emphasizing that no external power has the authority to dictate where Jews may live in their ancestral homeland. “Any attempt to restrict Jewish residence in the Land of Israel is morally wrong and fundamentally discriminatory.”
Sa’ar clarified that the Cabinet’s decision—to establish 11 new communities and formalize eight existing ones—is rooted in urgent security needs. All the communities are located in Area C, on state land, fully within zones where Israel retains administrative and security responsibility. These moves, he stressed, are defensive measures in response to persistent Palestinian terror, incitement, and illegal construction.
Rejecting claims of illegality, Sa’ar grounded Israel’s position firmly in international law and binding historical agreements. He cited the Balfour Declaration, its incorporation into the San Remo Resolution, and the League of Nations Mandate, whose protections for Jewish national rights were preserved under Article 80 of the UN Charter. These facts, Sa’ar noted, are routinely ignored by critics who prefer political narratives over legal reality.
Most striking, Sa’ar said, was the total silence of these same governments regarding the Palestinian Authority’s massive illegal construction in Area C—a campaign openly designed to erase Jewish claims and undermine Israel’s security. This omission, he argued, exposes the true imbalance behind the criticism.
The joint statement—signed by Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Spain, the UK, and others—invoked UN Security Council Resolution 2334 and repeated the familiar two-state mantra. Yet it ignored Palestinian rejectionism, glorification of terror, and repeated refusals to negotiate.
Israel’s message was clear: peace cannot be built on denying Jewish rights, rewarding Palestinian lawlessness, or imposing outcomes through diplomatic coercion. Sovereignty, security, and Jewish history are not bargaining chips—and Israel will not apologize for defending them.
