Follow us on social

Screen-shot-2022-03-02-at-6.44.38-pm

Why is Israel MIA on Ukraine-Russia crisis?

They don’t have much to lose by crossing Russia, but so far Tel Aviv has largely ignored Washington’s requests for back up.

Analysis | Europe

“Israel has been and will be on the right side of history,” read a February 28 tweet from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “Those are our values. Our most important ally has been and will be the United States, but our American partners also understand there are two points that we need to be mindful of and require us to be careful.”

The carefully worded tweetstorm was a largely unsuccessful attempt by Israel to explain its ambiguous position on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. While Foreign Minister Yair Lapid has condemned the invasion, Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has pointedly not done so. Israel also refused a U.S. request to support a proposed U.N. Security Council resolution condemning the Russian invasion.

Israel did agree to support a General Assembly resolution condemning Russia. Bennett also offered to mediate between Ukraine and Russia, reportedly at Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s request. Russia has so far ignored that offer, although Bennett continues to speak with both leaders. Still, Putin’s dismissal of the mediation offer undermines Bennett’s claim that Israel’s reluctance to join the global condemnation of Russia’s actions enables it to “communicate directly with both sides.”

Israel has been on the sidelines of diplomacy from the outset, even while American, French, German, and other leaders communicated directly with their Russian and Ukrainian counterparts. Russia and Ukraine needed no Israeli help to meet directly earlier this week. Indeed, other than embarrassing the United States by refusing to support its, admittedly quixotic, Security Council resolution, Israel has played no role at all. This has not endeared it either to Ukraine or to Russia.

If Israel’s mild response to Russia’s invasion is not serving a diplomatic purpose, we need to examine its contention that it has to be careful not to anger Russia. Former U.S. Middle East Envoy Dennis Ross, who is seemingly always prepared to act as Israel’s spokesman, summed up Israel’s argument at a recent meeting of the Jewish People’s Policy Institute: Russia, he said, “is right next door and they can make it very difficult for Israel to continue to conduct its operations in Syria, which are geared at preventing Hezbollah from putting precision guidance on tens of thousands of rockets.”

Israel routinely bombs or launches missile strikes in Syria, sometimes targeting Syrian forces, but usually aiming at Iranian or Hezbollah positions, claiming it is preventing arms shipments into Lebanon, or acting against a potential military buildup on its borders. Russia’s support for Syrian President Bashar Assad in the civil war in that country — which has led to at least 350,000 deaths and over 13 million people either displaced or turned into refugees — means that Israel needs to coordinate with Russia when it launches those attacks.

Israel is concerned that angering Russia will lead it to start defending Syrian airspace against Israeli incursions, making Israeli attacks much more difficult, or even impossible. The concern itself is horribly fraught, given the massive devastation Russia has wreaked in Syria. But even leaving such ethical concerns aside, Israel’s concerns about Russia don’t explain the non-stance on the invasion of Ukraine that it has presented. They especially fail to explain Israel’s refusal to support its indispensable patron, the United States.

As Alon Pinkas, Israel’s former Consul general in New York, wrote in Haaretz, “Are Israel’s regional interactions with Russia the strategic equivalent of its alliance with the United States? If not – and they are not – stand up and support President Joe Biden.”

It may indeed become more complicated for Israel to continue to bomb targets in Syria. But even that is not a certainty. Russia has, after all, continued to sit in Vienna for talks on reviving the Iran nuclear deal with the United States, Germany, the U.K., and France, with no apparent change in its position in that venue despite the massive outcry and economic response of most of those it is supposed to be working with. It is not in Russia’s interest to confront Israel or to see Hezbollah launch a significant attack on Israel right now. So, there is good reason to believe that Israel could take a stand against the invasion without paying the price they fear.

In fact, in some ways, Israel risks less than other countries. The harsh sanctions the West has imposed on Russia come with significant blowback. Gas prices will continue to rise, despite efforts at mitigation, which could cost American and European leaders dearly at the polls. Europe will lose access to its largest supplier of natural gas. Germany had to suspend the important Nord Stream 2 pipeline project and reversed long-standing policy limiting its military spending. Switzerland broke its long tradition of neutrality to support sanctions on Russia.

But Israel is reluctant to support the United States by merely standing up and condemning Russia’s actions.

The economic costs Europe has shown itself willing to endure may well have surprised Vladimir Putin, who may have thought — not without reason — that the EU would not have the stomach for such a deep hit. Israel, on the other hand, has only a minor economic relationship with Russia.

Israel-Russian imports and exports amount to about $3.5 billion per year. That's not a lot. The EU by contrast accounts for approximately $35 billion of imports and exports with Israel. Trade is going to be disrupted in any case, but Israel is simply not reliant on Russia as a trading partner. Yet it refuses to stand with the United States and Europe, who account for nearly half of Israel’s annual trade.

While the media in the United States has not paid much attention to Israel’s reluctance to take a firm stand against Russia, it has not gone unnoticed in Washington. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield sent a message to her Israeli counterpart, Gilad Erdan, registering the Biden administration’s disappointment in Israel’s behavior.

Former Defense Secretary William Cohen, a strong supporter of Israel, told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, “Israel is a close ally of the U.S., yet has not supported the U.S. over Ukraine. I’m deeply disappointed that they have not supported the United States. Now it comes down to: Are you with the Russians or are you with the United States and the West? They do have to make a decision here."

Even Republican Senator Lindsey Graham was miffed at Israel over its stance. Ukraine, Graham said, "asked Israel — no bigger fan of Israel than Lindsey Graham — for Stingers and apparently Israel said no. So ,I'm going to get on the phone with Israel — you know, we stand up for Israel with the Iron Dome." (Note: There have been no other reports of Ukraine asking Israel for Stinger missiles, but they have asked for other defensive missiles, and Israel has refused them).

Israel’s decision to support the General Assembly resolution condemning Russia was a small step forward, one which avoided the embarrassment of standing apart from 140 other countries voting for the resolution. But it has shown ethical and political weakness in the face of a global outrage and have, once again, shown how unreliable a partner it is for the United States.


Photos: Haditha26, lev radin, and Photographer RM via shutterstock.com
Analysis | Europe
Diplomacy Watch Donald Trump Putin Zelensky
Top Photo Credit: Diplomacy Watch (Khody Akhavi)

Diplomacy Watch: ‘Coalition of willing’ takes shape, without the US

QiOSK

Without Americans’ help, the European “coalition of the willing” is striving to assist Ukraine — to mixed reviews.

Europeans met on Thursday to hash out how European peacekeepers could be sent to Ukraine to enforce an eventual peace deal between Ukraine and Russia. But only Britain, France, Sweden, Denmark and Australia have said they would actually put boots on the ground.

keep readingShow less
Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarine
Top image credit: The Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarine USS Tennessee (SSBN 734) gold crew returns to its homeport at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Georgia, following a strategic deterrence patrol. The boat is one of five ballistic-missile submarines stationed at the base and is capable of carrying up to 20 submarine-launched ballistic missiles with multiple warheads. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication 2nd Class Bryan Tomforde)

More nukes = more problems

Military Industrial Complex

These have been tough years for advocates of arms control and nuclear disarmament. The world’s two leading nuclear powers — the United States and Russia — have only one treaty left that puts limits on their nuclear weapons stockpiles and deployments, the New START Treaty. That treaty limits deployments of nuclear weapons to 1,550 on each side, and includes verification procedures to hold them to their commitments.

But in the context of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the idea of extending New START when it expires in 2026 has been all but abandoned, leaving the prospect of a brave new world in which the United States and Russia can develop their nuclear weapons programs unconstrained by any enforceable rules.

keep readingShow less
 Netanyahu Ben Gvir
Top image credit: Israel Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Itamar Ben Gvir shake hands as the Israeli government approve Netanyahu's proposal to reappoint Itamar Ben-Gvir as minister of National Security, in the Knesset, Israeli parliament in Jerusaelm, March 19, 2025 REUTERS/Oren Ben Hakoon

Ceasefire collapse expands Israel's endless and boundary-less war

Middle East

The resumption of Israel’s assault on the Gaza Strip and collapse of the ceasefire agreement reached in January were predictable and in fact predicted at that time by Responsible Statecraft. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, driven by personal and domestic political motives, never intended to continue implementation of the agreement through to the declared goal of a permanent ceasefire.

Hamas, the other principal party to the agreement, had abided by its terms and consistently favored full implementation, which would have seen the release of all remaining Israeli hostages in addition to a full cessation of hostilities. Israel, possibly in a failed attempt to goad Hamas into doing something that would be an excuse for abandoning the agreement, committed numerous violations even before this week’s renewed assault. These included armed attacks that killed 155 Palestinians, continued occupation of areas from which Israel had promised to withdraw, and a blockade of humanitarian aid to Gaza that more than two weeks ago.

keep readingShow less

Trump transition

Latest

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.