Sa’ar at the UN: Clear, urgent, and barely heard - analysis

The timing was deliberate. Israel is being battered on the diplomatic stage, overwhelmed by a wave of recognitions of a Palestinian state and vilified in global media coverage shaped by images – some manipulated – of starving Gazans.

Sa’ar’s speech was brief, biting, and unapologetic. But in this “upside-down world” – words Sa’ar used repeatedly in both his speech and a brief statement to the press beforehand – even the most cogent arguments and harrowing evidence may not be enough to pierce through entrenched preconceptions.

Israel’s efforts to regain control of the narrative have intensified in recent weeks – witness the surge of humanitarian aid to Gaza. To augment this, Sa’ar has increased his presence before the international media, having given two press conferences to the foreign press in Jerusalem in the last two weeks.

At the UN, he tried to force the world to confront a moral inversion in which Hamas is treated as a legitimate actor and Israel as the villain. The message was strong. The impact, however, more muted. Those who criticize Israel’s public diplomacy effort – and there is much to criticize – often do so with unrealistic expectations.

They assume that it is a magic bullet, that the right speech, delivered at the right moment by the right figure in the right manner, will suddenly and dramatically change everything – it won’t. In an international environment where assumptions have already hardened and blame has been preassigned, even the most poignant testimony or shocking images may not move the needle.

Simply speaking the truth – or showing the truth – doesn’t mean it will be heard. That’s one of the harsh lessons of this war.

Still, Sa’ar tried. And in trying, he did something Israel hasn’t done successfully enough during this war: frame its case unapologetically on moral terms.

“On October 7, Hamas invaded with no reason into Israel,” he said, reminding the world of something it incredulously still needs to be reminded of—having long since lost the thread.

“It committed evil crimes like the Nazis and ISIS did. They murdered and raped women, killed children in front of their parents, and parents in front of their children. They beheaded people. Burned whole families alive. Took 251 hostages into cruel captivity. Fifty of them are still there. Starved and tortured.”

Sa’ar invoked not just the atrocities of October 7, but the horror of the present: hostages still being tortured, still being starved, and still being held for leverage. He described it as a sadistic propaganda strategy that uses the deliberate starvation of Israelis to deflect from Hamas’s own responsibility for Palestinian suffering.

And then he pointed to the silence. The deafening silence of the UN Secretary-General. The silence of much of the international media.

That, Sa’ar argued, is the problem. “The world has been turned upside down,” he said. “While Hamas runs its propaganda machine, a huge part of the international media is both ignoring the truth and buying its lies.”

This was a speech as much about the international community as it was about the enemy. Sa’ar accused the world of shifting responsibility from “the kidnappers and rapists to the attacked country.” He didn’t try to finesse the argument.

He demanded outrage, directed at Hamas, not at Israel. And he warned that what is happening to Israel today could happen to others tomorrow.

AND YET, for all the force of the speech – and the righteous anger behind it – the story of this moment may be less about what Sa’ar said and more about how little it echoed. A Google search of Sa’ar’s UN address turns up dozens of results from Israeli and Jewish sites. But in the global media? A trickle.

The Reuters write-up of the UN session barely mentioned David, instead highlighting warnings about an Israeli expansion of operations in Gaza.

In a media landscape where images of Gaza’s hunger dominate, and where political actors in Europe and beyond are jockeying to recognize a Palestinian state, Sa’ar’s message competes with a narrative that has already been cast in cement. But that he is now more aggressively challenging that narrative is a welcome shift in tone and tactics.

For much of this war, Israel has been reactive, pushing back against criticism and defending itself against accusations. Sa’ar flipped the script.

Instead of explaining Israel’s humanitarian efforts in abstract terms, he contrasted the well-fed bodies of terrorists with the skeletal frames of their victims – evidence not just of cruelty, but of a propaganda strategy built on human suffering.

Instead of engaging in a legalistic debate about proportionality or ceasefire frameworks, he indicted the international community for what he called “free gifts” to Hamas: recognition of a “virtual Palestinian state,” pressure on Israel, and silence in the face of hostage abuse.

Instead of calling for understanding, he called for accountability not only from Hamas, but from the countries and institutions that, in his words, “prolonged the war” by directing their pressure at Israel rather than the terror group responsible for starting it.

Instead of treating the conflict as a tragic clash between two warring sides, he insisted on moral clarity: Hamas began the war. Hamas is continuing it. And Hamas, not Israel, is to blame for the suffering on both sides.

This is a model Israel needs to lean into more, not because it will automatically change minds, but because it reframes the conversation on moral grounds. And moral clarity is what is needed here, and what the international community has lost.

But let’s be realistic, clarity isn’t always enough.

Even the most morally unambiguous message can fall flat in a world that’s already made up its mind. Even the most shocking images can be overlooked if they don’t fit the prevailing narrative. And that’s what makes this moment so frustrating.

Sa’ar did the right thing. He said the right things. He spoke clearly and forcefully and without hedging. But in an upside-down world, where Hamas’s word is often given the benefit of the doubt and Israel’s is constantly questioned and second-guessed, there are no guarantees that any of it will matter.

But that doesn’t mean Israel should stop speaking. If anything, it should speak louder. More often. More clearly. And, like Sa’ar did this week, with unwavering moral confidence.