Israel Says It Is Not Isolated as Congo Deepens Ties: Diplomatic Reality—or Cherry-Picking Friendly Visits?
Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar rejects claims that Israel is internationally isolated and points to governments seeking closer ties, including recent diplomacy with the Democratic Republic of Congo. Israel does retain extensive partnerships, but serious ruptures with parts of Europe and the Global South make the isolation debate more complicated.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar has dismissed claims that Israel is becoming internationally isolated, saying countries continue to approach Jerusalem seeking stronger relations.
He pointed to recent diplomatic visits, including engagement with the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The underlying example is real.
Israel and the DRC recently reaffirmed bilateral ties and signed memoranda covering diplomatic training and political dialogue.
Congolese officials also discussed cooperation in trade, agriculture, health, education, investment and technology.
Israel maintains active relations with many states in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe.
That is incompatible with the most dramatic version of the claim that Israel is completely isolated.
The more meaningful question is whether its diplomatic environment has worsened significantly.
On that measure, the evidence is mixed.
Israel retains close ties with the United States and important relationships with Germany, India, several African governments and parts of Eastern Europe.
The Abraham Accords created formal relations with the UAE, Bahrain and Morocco.
Security and technology cooperation continues with countries that publicly criticise Israeli policy.
At the same time, Israel has suffered serious diplomatic damage over Gaza, the West Bank and the Iran war.
Several governments have recognised Palestine or increased pressure for recognition.
European political debates have shifted sharply.
Foreign Minister Sa’ar himself severed contact with EU foreign-policy chief Kaja Kallas after accusing her of comparing Israel with apartheid South Africa.
Legal cases and arrest-warrant debates have created additional tension.
Public opinion in many Western democracies has also become more critical.
Isolation is therefore not binary.
A country can have dozens of embassies, trade agreements and visiting ministers while losing legitimacy in international institutions or among important publics.
Russia has extensive diplomatic relations despite sanctions.
Iran trades with major powers despite isolation from the United States.
The number of meetings alone does not measure influence.
Sa’ar has political reasons to reject the isolation narrative.
Israeli opposition figures argue that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies have damaged the country’s standing.
The government responds that its enemies mistake criticism in European media for actual diplomatic abandonment.
Showing foreign ministers visiting Jerusalem helps counter the image of a pariah state.
African diplomacy is particularly important.
Israel has long sought partnerships involving agriculture, water, security technology and healthcare.
African governments may value those relationships while disagreeing with Israeli policy toward Palestinians.
The DRC has its own security and development priorities and does not necessarily view Middle Eastern diplomacy through the same lens as European governments.
This is one reason the “world versus Israel” narrative is misleading.
The international system contains many interests.
Countries may criticise Israel at the United Nations and sign technology agreements the next week.
They may support Palestinian statehood while maintaining intelligence cooperation with Jerusalem.
Economic and strategic relationships often survive moral disagreement.
The opposite propaganda claim is also too simple.
Pointing to one Congolese visit does not prove Israel faces no diplomatic cost.
The question should be assessed across trade, votes, military cooperation, sanctions, visas, public opinion and high-level access.
Israel’s conflict with EU institutions matters because Europe is a major economic partner.
Tension with Arab publics matters even when governments preserve formal relations.
International legal pressure matters because it affects travel and reputation.
Relations with Washington matter more than almost any individual African partnership.
Sa’ar’s point is strongest when directed against absolute claims.
Israel is not diplomatically alone.
His claim becomes weaker if interpreted to mean international criticism has had no effect.
Governments are diversifying their relationships, and Israel continues to find willing partners.
It is also spending increasing diplomatic effort defending policies that previously generated less resistance.
The open question is not whether a foreign minister from Congo can visit Jerusalem.
It is whether Israel can convert continuing bilateral relationships into broader legitimacy—or whether its network remains wide while the political cost of its wars keeps growing inside the institutions and alliances it values most.