Committee Chair Zvika Fogel described the issue as a test of Israel’s determination to assert its sovereignty beyond the battlefield. He told fellow lawmakers that sovereignty must also be defended in the diplomatic sphere, stressing that “the war for legitimacy is fought not only with weapons but through clear policy.” According to Fogel, protecting Jerusalem’s status is an obligation that “does not depend on anyone else’s approval” and demands practical measures, not just statements. 

The committee’s background document listed consulates from France, Spain, Sweden, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Italy, Greece, Turkey, the European Union, and the Vatican as operating without agrément—the official accreditation foreign missions require under international law. Most of these consulates, originally established during the British Mandate, still provide services exclusively to Palestinians and refuse to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Lawmakers said this effectively amounts to recognizing a Palestinian state and contradicts Israel’s sovereign authority in the city. 

Speaking with The Media Line, MK Ohad Tal of the Religious Zionism party said the situation had reached a point where Israel must draw a clear line. He explained that if consulates are serving Palestinians exclusively, “they should be doing that out of Ramallah, not Jerusalem,” emphasizing that “Jerusalem is Israel’s eternal and undivided capital and a fundamental part of our sovereignty.” Tal argued that it is time for Israel to “stop accepting this diplomatic fiction” and insisted that foreign governments “must respect that reality.” When asked whether such a move could harm relations with Europe, he dismissed the concern, saying, “Israel’s long-standing relations with European countries are built on shared interests; they need us no less than we need them, and defending our sovereignty shouldn’t change that.” 

The session took place against the backdrop of shifting postwar diplomacy and the implementation of President Donald Trump’s 20-point peace plan, which reaffirmed Jerusalem as Israel’s united capital. For many lawmakers, the timing of the discussion was deliberate—a signal that Israel intends to assert its political standing after the war with Gaza and amid renewed recognition of Palestinian statehood by some European governments. 

Eden Bar Tal, director general of the Foreign Ministry, confirmed during the meeting that Israel has already taken “measured but meaningful steps” against states promoting policies hostile to Israel within the European Union. He did not reveal specific actions but said several governments have already “felt” Israel’s response, which may include restrictions on participation in donor conferences, delays in diplomatic accreditation, and, in one case, the recall of an ambassador for consultations. Bar-Tal explained that these moves are part of a broader strategy that uses diplomatic tools “selectively and strategically,” aimed at sending a message without triggering unnecessary escalation. 

Yoni Eshpar, a representative of the National Security Council, added that the issue is being handled carefully and in coordination with the Prime Minister’s Office. He confirmed that several options are being considered but warned that any premature or public steps could deepen divisions within Europe. According to Eshpar, “there is a hard core of European states that have taken openly adversarial positions—among them Norway, Slovenia, Spain, and Ireland—and timing our response correctly is essential.” 

Legal and civil society representatives invited to the hearing took a sharper tone, calling for immediate closure of the missions. Avraham Shalev, legal adviser to the Kohelet Policy Forum, argued that Israel should “close those consulates without delay,” saying some European governments have effectively rebranded their offices as embassies to Palestine—a move he described as “a direct challenge to Israeli sovereignty.” Shai Glick, CEO of the human rights group BeTzalmu, was even more forceful, accusing European diplomats of “acting as if they were stationed in a state called Palestine” and urging the government to “shut them down immediately.” Glick claimed that allowing such missions to operate in Jerusalem “sends the message that our own laws can be ignored in our capital.” 

Naomi Kahn, head of the international division at the Regavim movement, presented a series of cases in which European consular personnel were allegedly involved in unauthorized construction and land projects in Area C of the West Bank. She said that in some instances, consular vehicles were used to deliver materials for projects later deemed illegal under Israeli law, calling it “a pattern of activity that goes far beyond normal diplomacy.” 

Adding a legal perspective, Prof. Ofira Gruweis-Kovalsky explained that Israel’s judiciary has already ruled that these missions and their staff do not enjoy full diplomatic immunity since they were never accredited to the State of Israel. She said several European countries justify their actions by citing early UN resolutions that envisioned Jerusalem as an international city—a concept she called “obsolete and irrelevant in a world that recognizes Israel’s sovereignty.” Gruweis-Kovalsky added that formally closing or downgrading these missions would be “well within international norms,” provided Israel offers proper notice and alternative channels for consular services. 

As the hearing concluded, Fogel remarked that Israel’s struggle against extremist Islamist movements “is not only on the front lines but also in the halls of diplomacy.” He said parts of the discussion would continue behind closed doors to review classified recommendations from the National Security Council and Foreign Ministry. According to committee officials, follow-up sessions will evaluate concrete enforcement mechanisms, including the possibility of limiting diplomatic privileges or closing certain offices altogether. 

For many years, Israel treated those consulates as little more than a historical curiosity—remnants of a pre-state arrangement that no one rushed to fix. Their activity was tolerated as long as it stayed quiet, even when it occasionally crossed into political work on behalf of the Palestinians. But that old tolerance is wearing thin. Growing friction with European governments over recognition of a Palestinian state and over trade restrictions has pushed the issue from the margins of diplomacy to the center of Israel’s relationship with Europe. 

Officials at the Foreign Ministry still prefer caution. They know that any unilateral step could open an unnecessary fight with countries that remain key partners for Israel in defense and commerce. Yet inside the National Security Committee, the tone has changed. One coalition member said after the meeting that Israel can’t keep “talking about sovereignty while foreign governments keep ignoring it right here in Jerusalem.” 

No government decision has been announced, but the discussion clearly pointed to a shift in thinking. Closing or restricting those missions would no longer be treated as a symbolic move but as a matter of principle. If the Cabinet decides to act, the question of consular status in Jerusalem could turn from a procedural dispute into a new diplomatic test—one that would challenge the fragile understandings that have governed the city’s foreign presence since 1948.