- February 21, 2026
- 1:48 pm
- Middle East
The speech by Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar at the UN Security Council meeting elicited a sharp reaction from the Russian delegation. The Russian Permanent Mission to the UN expressed ‘regret’ that Israel, in their words, is ‘increasingly succumbing to the anti-Russian wave.’
The occasion was a public remark by Sa’ar directed at the Russian Permanent Representative Vasily Nebenzya.
Sa’ar’s remark and Moscow’s response
‘It was amusing to listen’
At the Security Council meeting, the Israeli Foreign Minister commented on the speech by the Russian representative, who touched on topics of international law, occupation, and annexation of territories.
‘It was amusing to hear the Russian representative talk about international law, occupation, annexation of territories, and peaceful conflict resolution. I barely restrained myself from laughing out loud,’ Sa’ar said.
The Russian side noted in an official comment that the mere mention of their speech by the Israeli minister allegedly indicates that it ‘struck a nerve.’
In the statement by the Russian delegation, there was a formulation that Israeli colleagues are ‘succumbing to the anti-Russian wave,’ which Moscow views as a negative trend in bilateral dialogue.
Ukraine, ‘Nazism,’ and Kremlin rhetoric
The topic of Shukhevych and Bandera
In their response, Russian diplomats once again linked the Ukrainian crisis with theses about the ‘rampant neo-Nazism’ and the glorification of historical figures such as Roman Shukhevych and Stepan Bandera. These arguments are regularly used by the Kremlin in international rhetoric after the start of the full-scale war against Ukraine.
The statement claims that such phenomena are ‘dangerous’ and allegedly one of the reasons for the conflict. This is part of Moscow’s traditional line — tying modern Ukrainian politics to the theme of World War II.
Israel, as a state created after the tragedy of the Holocaust, regularly reacts to attempts to instrumentalize the theme of Nazism in political disputes.
The Middle East and the Palestinian issue
Judea, Samaria, and the ‘two-state formula’
The Russian delegation also reiterated its position on the status of Judea and Samaria, calling these territories ‘occupied Palestinian.’ Moscow emphasized that its assessments of Israel’s actions in the region — including the situation around Lebanon, Syria, and Iran — remain unchanged.
The statement says that long-term security guarantees for Israel, according to Moscow, are possible only ‘through political and diplomatic means’ based on the two-state formula.
This position diverges from the current line of the Israeli government, which actively disputes the Palestinian narrative of the existence of a full-fledged quasi-state entity called ‘Palestine,’ encompassing Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.
In this context, NANews — News of Israel | Nikk.Agency notes that the rhetorical conflict in the UN Security Council reflects a broader divergence of positions between Moscow and Jerusalem on key international issues — from Ukraine to the status of Palestinian territories.
Political background and diplomatic signals
Moscow’s reaction shows that the statements by the Israeli minister were perceived as a direct challenge. Public irony towards the Russian position in the Security Council became a rare case of open confrontation on the diplomatic stage.
The situation demonstrates that Israeli foreign policy in the context of the war in Ukraine is becoming more defined and public. Meanwhile, Moscow, in turn, reacts harshly to any signals it interprets as a departure from Jerusalem’s previous ‘caution.’
Disagreements at the UN platform are not an episode but a reflection of a structural change in relations amid the global restructuring of alliances and priorities.
