From the outset, Sa’ar situated the moment within the arc of recent history, praising Trump for what he characterized as a pattern of initiative and audacity in foreign policy. The Israel National News report noted that Sa’ar credited Trump’s leadership, in concert with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s resolve, with securing the return of all hostages from Gaza—an achievement he framed not merely as a diplomatic success but as a moral imperative fulfilled. In a city accustomed to cautious language, Sa’ar’s rhetoric was unapologetically emphatic. He portrayed the president as a leader willing to “forge new paths,” arguing that the Board of Peace itself symbolized a break from the habits of half-measures and diplomatic equivocation that have long defined international engagement with the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

Yet the speech was anchored not in triumphalism but in remembrance. Sa’ar spoke on behalf of a nation he described as having endured two years of war across seven fronts, a formulation that captured Israel’s sense of being encircled by a constellation of adversaries. He invoked the memory of 925 Israeli soldiers who lost their lives in a struggle against “pure evil”—Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah—organizations he described as animated by an unrelenting commitment to Israel’s destruction. The cadence of his tribute underscored a broader argument: that Israel’s security doctrine is inseparable from the human cost borne by families and communities whose sons and daughters were drawn into a conflict not of their choosing.

The foreign minister’s reflections on Gaza traced a grim chronology that, in Israel’s official narrative, begins with Hamas’s violent seizure of power in 2007 and culminates in the atrocities of October 7.  Sa’ar recounted the horrors of that day in stark terms, describing acts of sexual violence, the murder of children in front of their parents, and the immolation of entire families. His words were intended not merely to memorialize the victims but to insist upon a moral clarity that, in Israel’s view, must inform any future policy toward Gaza. The events of October 7, Sa’ar suggested, were not aberrations but the culmination of a terror infrastructure painstakingly constructed over years—above and below ground—by Hamas, and nourished by a culture of incitement and indoctrination.

It was against this backdrop that Sa’ar advanced Israel’s support for President Trump’s “comprehensive plan” for Gaza. Israel National News has repeatedly emphasized that Israeli officials regard this plan as a departure from previous international proposals, which they argue failed because they skirted the ideological and military foundations of Hamas’s rule. Sa’ar argued that earlier efforts focused on reconstruction and humanitarian relief without dismantling the terror apparatus that made cyclical violence inevitable. By contrast, the new framework, as he described it, places disarmament and demilitarization at its core, coupled with a sustained process of de-radicalization within Palestinian society in Gaza.

The foreign minister’s insistence on de-radicalization signaled an expansion of Israel’s security discourse beyond the physical destruction of tunnels and weapons depots. Sa’ar spoke of the necessity of dismantling the educational and social infrastructures that, in Israel’s assessment, inculcate hatred of Jews and glorify martyrdom among Palestinian children. This emphasis reflects a longstanding Israeli critique of international aid mechanisms that, while alleviating material deprivation, have failed to address the ideological currents that perpetuate conflict. Sa’ar framed de-radicalization not as collective punishment but as a prerequisite for any durable peace, arguing that a society steeped in incitement cannot be expected to coexist peacefully with its neighbor.

In a notable rhetorical turn, Sa’ar extended his argument to the welfare of Gazans themselves. Israel National News reported that he spoke of the people of Gaza as having lived for decades under a “terror regime,” their civic life distorted and their prospects circumscribed by Hamas’s authoritarian control. The liberation of Gaza’s civilians from that regime, Sa’ar suggested, is not merely an Israeli interest but a humanitarian imperative. This framing seeks to counter the international narrative that often casts Israel’s security measures as inimical to Palestinian well-being, positing instead that the eradication of terror governance is the necessary precondition for any meaningful improvement in Gazan life.

The speech also included a gesture toward interfaith sensibility, as Sa’ar took the opportunity to wish Muslims worldwide “Ramadan Kareem.” The Israel National News report highlighted this moment as an attempt to signal that Israel’s struggle is not with Islam but with militant organizations that, in Israel’s view, instrumentalize religious identity for violent ends. Such gestures, while symbolic, are part of a broader diplomatic effort to decouple Israel’s security agenda from broader religious antagonisms, particularly at a moment when regional alliances and public opinion remain volatile.

Underlying Sa’ar’s address was a claim of historical inflection. He described Trump’s leadership as creating, “for the first time,” an opportunity for a fundamentally different future. The Israel National News report contextualized this assertion within the administration’s broader efforts to recalibrate American engagement in the Middle East, including initiatives that Israeli officials believe have shifted the diplomatic landscape. Sa’ar’s closing words—thanking the president for his leadership on behalf of the State of Israel—were framed as an endorsement not only of a specific plan but of a leadership style that prizes decisive action over procedural inertia.

The Board of Peace itself is intended to serve as an institutional platform for translating these ambitions into coordinated policy. Its inaugural meeting in Washington was imbued with the symbolism of a new beginning, even as the practical challenges of implementation loom large. The disarmament of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the demilitarization of Gaza, and the de-radicalization of its society are objectives that, while rhetorically compelling, will confront formidable obstacles on the ground. Sa’ar’s speech acknowledged the difficulty of producing peace—an “easy word to say, but a hard word to produce,” as Trump himself has put it—but insisted that the alternative, perpetual war, exacts a far higher price.

For Israel, the stakes of this moment are existential. Israel National News has chronicled the sense among Israeli policymakers that incrementalism has failed, that cycles of ceasefire and escalation have entrenched rather than alleviated the conditions of conflict. Sa’ar’s address, in this light, can be read as a manifesto for a more maximalist approach—one that seeks to reshape the political and ideological terrain of Gaza rather than merely contain its most violent expressions. Whether the international community will coalesce around such a vision remains uncertain, particularly given divergent assessments of legality, feasibility, and humanitarian impact.

Yet the speech also revealed an acute awareness of the moral and emotional dimensions of the conflict. By foregrounding the memory of fallen soldiers and the suffering of hostages and their families, Sa’ar anchored strategic arguments in human experience. This fusion of memory and policy is characteristic of Israeli political rhetoric, in which security imperatives are often justified through appeals to collective trauma and resilience. The invocation of the 925 fallen soldiers was not incidental; it served to remind listeners that Israel’s strategic calculations are shaped by the cumulative weight of sacrifice.

In the broader diplomatic theater, Sa’ar’s appearance at the Board of Peace meeting can be seen as an attempt to align Israel’s narrative with an American-led initiative that promises a decisive break from past paradigms. Israeli officials view the Board as a vehicle for sustaining international focus on the structural drivers of terror, even as negotiations and ceasefires ebb and flow. By endorsing Trump’s vision so emphatically, Sa’ar signaled Israel’s readiness to invest political capital in a framework that demands far-reaching transformations within Gaza—a readiness born, in part, of the conviction that partial measures have only deferred the reckoning.

As the meeting concluded, the rhetoric of possibility coexisted uneasily with the realities of a region still scarred by violence. Sa’ar’s words offered a vision of a future in which demilitarization and de-radicalization pave the way for stability, and in which Gazans are freed from the grip of terror governance. Whether this vision can be realized will depend on a confluence of factors far beyond the walls of Washington’s conference rooms: the capacity of international actors to enforce disarmament, the willingness of regional stakeholders to support transformative change, and the emergence of alternative leadership within Palestinian society. The Board of Peace represents not a resolution but a wager—a bet that boldness, rather than caution, can finally bend the arc of this protracted conflict toward a more durable peace.