Israel foreign minister: ‘It's in UK's interest that radical Islamists are defeated in Middle East'

Yahoo

19-04-2025

'Is Britain still a good friend of Israel?' That was my question to Gideon Sa'ar, the country's foreign minister. His visit to the UK, where he met David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, triggered the usual Left-wing activists, some of whom demanded an arrest warrant be issued. The application was unsuccessful, and Mr Sa'ar, who served in the Israel Defense Forces's vaunted Golani Brigade, appears unfazed by the brouhaha.
He replies without hesitation: 'The UK is a good friend of Israel. For us, it is important to keep this friendship. I'm not hiding the fact that we have differences of opinion, disagreements sometimes in our conversations.'
Mr Sa'ar elaborates: 'In my conversations with the Foreign Secretary, I bring a very accurate and frank approach when I think that the British position should be, let's say, more friendly to Israel, or take into greater consideration our reality, the neighbourhood we are living in.'
He provides an example of his frustrations: 'When terrorists from Hamas or Islamic Jihad are acting from a hospital, and we take all the measures, including warning and evacuating people from there to avoid any unnecessary collateral damage, eventually, the question that should be asked is not why we attack, but why Hamas are using hospitals or schools or UNRWA installations to attack Israel and its citizens. We don't always feel that we are getting the right context.'
Mr Sa'ar adds: 'I can assure you that the discussions between us are frank, and the friendship with the UK is important to us. We respect the decision, the vote of the citizens of the UK. We are working with the current government.'
A close UK-Israeli relationship is mutually beneficial, he insists. 'We not only have a traditional friendship, but also very important connections that help UK national security through intelligence and security co-operation. Both countries benefit from a good relationship.'
Mr Sa'ar met Mr Lammy on Wednesday. The British readout from the meeting between the two men didn't sound especially sympathetic to the Israeli point of view. The Foreign Office says Mr Lammy 'raised the ongoing hostage negotiations, protection of aid workers, the need to end the humanitarian blockade of Gaza and stop settlement expansion in the West Bank, and the Iranian nuclear issue'. He also 'raised the importance' of visits to Israel in the wake of two anti-Israel Labour MPs being barred from entry.
I ask Mr Sa'ar how he thinks the meeting went. 'It was a good conversation. Good conversation does not necessarily mean we didn't have differences on any issue, but I believe in a dialogue, and I have a dialogue with David Lammy, we speak on the phone, and we meet from time to time. We met in Jerusalem and we met here in London. I believe in a dialogue: you always gain something by making your arguments and intentions clearer.'
On the question of the barred Left-wing MPs, Mr Sa'ar is emphatic. 'I explained that we have laws to decide who is entering our territory.' He says that the Knesset has legislated specifically against allowing in 'people who are calling to boycott or sanction Israel', but that ordinary critics are let in. He reminds me that Britain previously blocked an Israeli politician from entering the UK, and also Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician. This week the Home Secretary banned Renaud Camus, the French anti-immigration writer, on the grounds that his presence would go against 'the public good'.
'It is not something that is targeted against British MPs,' Mr Sa'ar says. 'We had a case involving American congresswomen, and we publicly disallowed them to enter our state, and America is our greatest friend. If you want to harm our countries and the relations between Israel and the UK, I don't think we are obliged to open the door for that.'
Is the UK doing enough to combat Islamist extremism, I ask. 'I don't want to criticise any country for what they are doing in their domestic arena. But I can tell you that I have been told by some Arab friends that certain activities of the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK are disallowed in certain Arab states, which is strange. It's an issue for the UK, the public in the United Kingdom, to decide how much radical Islam is free to act in the UK, and what can be the possible consequences.' He adds: 'It's something I've heard lately very often.'
A father of four, the 58-year-old Mr Sa'ar is a ubiquitous figure in Israeli politics, and his career reflects its chaotic, almost incomprehensible, nature, as well as the multi-decade domination of Benjamin Netanyahu, its mercurial prime minister.
Mr Sa'ar has served in various ministerial roles under Mr Netanyahu, stood against him for the Likud leadership, fallen out with him, set up his own rival Right-wing party, served in the centrist government of Bibi's great rival, reconciled himself with Mr Netanyahu, fallen out with him again and is now back on side, so much so that his New Hope party is set to reintegrate with Likud. His current role is his most powerful yet, and he has been propelled to the forefront of Israel's global PR offensive.
For now, the UK, unlike France, doesn't appear to be proposing to unilaterally recognise a Palestinian state. I ask Mr Sa'ar what he thinks of Emmanuel Macron's announcement that the French are minded to take that incendiary step soon. 'I hope they are not. We hear from them that a decision hasn't been taken yet. I think it would be a grave mistake for France to do that. They will lose regional influence, they will harm their position. They will not create a Palestinian state by this wishful or imaginary decision.'
He points out that many countries have recognised a Palestinian state, but that it hasn't changed the 'reality on the ground'. He worries that it would remove the Palestinians' incentives to compromise or negotiate. 'It will decrease the chances of achieving peace and stability in the future. Palestinians are working in multilateral forums and the international arena to isolate and harm Israel, not to have peace.'
He warns that Israel may respond unilaterally if France chooses to act. 'Such a decision will be a huge mistake, and it will also push Israel into a corner, and force it to take decisions on unilateral steps by itself. If someone is trying to prejudge the outcome of future possible negotiations, we can do it as well.'
I ask if that means annexation of some territories. Mr Sa'ar pushes back on the terminology, preferring to speak of 'implementing law over our communities in Judea and Samaria'. He adds: 'No doubt it will push Israel in that direction if someone is trying to prejudge what will happen there in the future, and these territories are disputed. You cannot sit in silence when others are trying to undermine your position.'
Donald Trump's election victory was greeted enthusiastically in Israel, but many now wonder whether the US president's resolve on Iran may be weakening. I ask Mr Sa'ar whether he fears Steve Witkoff, Mr Trump's negotiator, may be angling for a soft, Obama-style deal with the Islamic Republic.
The Foreign Minister points instead to a more hawkish recent post by Mr Witkoff on X. 'Steve Witkoff tweeted emphasising that he is looking for the dismantling of the Iranian nuclear project, both enrichment and weaponisation,' he says. 'I believe that the current administration is committed to dealing with this issue. It has put it very high on its agenda. The most important thing is the objective. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.'
It's not just Israel that is at risk. 'We saw [how Iran] helped Russia during the war on Ukraine, with weapons, drones and intelligence,' he explains, warning of 'the great danger' of allowing 'the most extremist regime in the world to have the most dangerous weapon in the world. Iran's missiles have the ability to reach Europe today'.
He worries about contagion. 'If Iran will have nuclear weapons, then we will have a nuclear race in the Middle East, and then the Saudis, Egypt, Turkey and other countries would like to have nuclear weapons as well, and this will have hard consequences on security, not only in the Middle East.'
But it is for Israel that tackling the threat from a regime that has repeatedly vowed its destruction is truly an existential question. 'They attacked Israel two times with hundreds of missiles, they use proxies that destabilised all the Middle East, like Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis. If they have done all that without nuclear weapons, what will they be able to do if they will have a nuclear umbrella?'
I ask him about a New York Times story that Israel had planned to attack Iran as early as next month, but that Mr Trump had blocked the strike. 'I am a member of the security cabinet, and all the intimate forums, and I don't remember such a decision,' Mr Sa'ar replies. He adds: 'I don't think that such a decision was taken. But Israel is committed to the objective of preventing Iran from having nuclear weapons. If that objective can be achieved by a diplomatic path, it is accepted.'
But he warns that Iran's undertakings cannot be trusted. 'Iran always mocked its international obligations. I'm not excluding the option that they will try to get some partial agreements, to avoid getting to the necessary solution. We are speaking directly with the Americans. We're also speaking with European friends. I think we all have the same objective. Iran is in a position of relative weakness, and this should be used to achieve the objective, and not to let Iran escape for the sake of convenience, to waste time until the circumstances change.'
Mr Sa'ar also warns that Yemen's Houthis 'are causing huge problems for world trade, the world order and freedom of navigation' and that 'the prices of commodities are going up' as a result of their piracy and terrorism. He welcomes the latest Western offensive against the Houthi problem, but hints that an even more robust approach will be needed. 'The US and the UK have started to deal with it, and I praise that. I think it's important for international order, but eventually there will need to be more steps to deal with the Houthi problem, including its financial roots.'
He is clearly frustrated at previous, well-meaning Western attempts at peacemaking. 'There were Arab moderate regimes that fought against the Houthis, for example, the Saudis and the UAE, but they were stopped by Western countries.' I ask him whether that was a mistake. He replies dryly: 'I tend to think so.'
Terrorist groups have become more ambitious. 'What we see in the case of the Houthis and we saw with Hamas and Hezbollah is terror organisations that take over territory and became a terrorist state. They have the resources, and they have people under their control, and they build their kingdoms. They are all supported by Iran, financially, in terms of training and in other dimensions.'
He recalls how a US-led coalition fought against the Isis caliphate, the original sovereign terror state. 'It should be the same with all these terror organisations that took over a territory and built it as terror states, and the Houthis are no doubt one of the most dangerous and radical of all these terror movements.'
What does Mr Sa'ar think of those demonstrators in Britain who chant 'Yemen, Yemen make us proud, turn another ship around', and other extremist slogans? 'I think they are useful idiots. They are supporting ideological forces that oppose the Western way of life, Western values, Western culture. We are just closer.'
He believes that Israel is on the front lines of struggle that concerns all democracies. 'Jihadism is a common threat to all of Western civilisation, including the UK. [Israel] are fighting to defend ourselves. But while doing so, we are also fighting the fight of all the Western world, and this is something important for me to say to UK citizens, because I know that most of them perfectly understand the danger, the deep danger of such an extremist ideology.'
An Israeli victory would thus give the West's own anti-extremism efforts a major boost. 'The results of the war in the Middle East against radical Islamists will also influence Muslim communities in Europe. To the extent that the radical Islamists are defeated in the Middle East, that will have a certain effect. And if, God forbid, they were to prevail, it will have another kind of effect. It is clearly in the interest of Europe, of the UK, that the radical Islamists in the Middle East be defeated.'
Israel has long rejected the accusations of genocide or war crimes that keep being levelled against it by activist groups. Mr Sa'ar believes that Israel has done much better than its Western allies in fighting previous urban wars, despite the fact that Hamas uses civilians as human shields, and says that the IDF often backs away to reduce collateral damage.
'The ratio between terrorists [killed] and civilians that tragically are also victims in wars was much worse in Raqqa or Mosul than in the Gaza Strip. We operate our operations with legal scrutiny, according to international law, the rules of war. They are targeting civilians on both sides. That's the immoral thing. We are targeting the terrorists. Sometimes, indeed, they are hiding among civilians. And we need to consider that and sometimes we don't attack. We are doing our utmost to minimise the number of civilian casualties.' He says that any claims that all civilian casualties can be completely eliminated under such urban warfare are 'a total lie'.
Like many in Israel, Mr Sa'ar decries what he calls a 'new anti-Semitism' in sections of the West. 'The historical anti-Semitism targeted the Jews. It hated the Jews, among other things, for being successful. The new anti-Semitism targets the only Jewish state and delegitimises, dehumanises the Jewish state, using double standards. They have this unique approach, denying [Israel's] right to exist and right to self-defence. When they shout, 'from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free', it's to eliminate the State of Israel.'
As the Passover holidays come to an end, the fact that so many hostages remain in Gaza after so long continues to gnaw away at the Israeli soul. It is the dominant issue in Israel, as well as in the Jewish diaspora, in every conversation and in every thought.
Mr Sa'ar hopes a new deal can be done, but also warns that he is running out of patience. 'We will not sit without doing anything while they still hold 59 hostages. We will not wait forever. We will try to do our utmost in order to have a new reasonable hostage deal. But if we are not eventually able to achieve the cause via a diplomatic or political path, we will have to renew the military operation, and not a limited one, but a powerful one.'
He highlights opposition to Hamas in Gaza, a relatively new development. 'The war can end tomorrow. It's very simple. You know, four words, 'hostages back, Hamas out', the war will be over. The international community agrees to the objective, that hostages should be released, that Hamas cannot stay in power. But somehow they are more critical about the means.'
Mr Sa'ar is interested in Mr Trump's vision for a post-war reconstruction of Gaza, under two conditions. The US president spoke of Gazans leaving, perhaps temporarily, but Mr Sa'ar is clear that he doesn't support any form of compulsion or coercion. 'The decision to emigrate must be a free choice decision. Sometimes I receive in my private social media accounts appeals from Palestinians who want me to help them to leave. There are a lot of people there that don't want to live in this mess.'
The second condition is that some countries need to volunteer to accept the departing Gazans. He says that some will be willing to do so. 'I don't want to reveal [which ones] ahead of time, but there are countries I believe will be ready to do so. There are countries that are doing it already, now in very low numbers, and there are countries willing to do that in bigger numbers.'
He points out that nobody objects to Syrians or Afghans voluntarily emigrating, and claims that many critics who oppose Mr Trump's plan want to 'keep Palestinians in the most awful position as a tool in the war against Israel, just as they kept the refugee camps in Arab countries for 77 years'. 'How can you be against the immigration of someone who wants [to leave], and there is a country ready to accept them? That's not human,' he says.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.