A Fine Balance: Israel's Role in Ukraine
“Israel is doing a lot of good things, on the humanitarian level and through mediation. But neutrality is not a good look. If people look at Israel and see that, it’s a problem.”
GEOPOLITICS
As the war in Ukraine drags on, Russia’s isolation grows by the day. Unprecedented sanctions have virtually sealed off its economy (with the important exception of its energy industry). Hundreds of multinational corporations, from designer goods-chains to fast-food outlets, have pulled out of Russia. Flights to most of the world have been blocked; the Russian government has lost access to its foreign reserves; and its oligarchs are losing their yachts and other properties as they’re seized by foreign states. Western nations haven’t been this unified in decades—with one apparent exception. Since the crisis began, Israel has tried to walk a precarious line: preserving its close connection with Vladimir Putin while also maintaining its deep security relationship with Washington while also giving moral and humanitarian support to Kyiv. This neutrality—a term Israeli officials reject—has allowed Jerusalem to offer itself as an honest broker and intermediary between the belligerents. But it also risks angering Israel’s biggest backers. To better understand Israel’s fraught new role, the prospects for success, and what it reveals about Israel’s larger foreign policy, I turned to Shalom Lipner. Now a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, Lipner was born in Canada but has lived in Israel for many years, during which he’s served as an adviser to seven consecutive prime ministers. We spoke on Monday from his home in Jerusalem.
Octavian Report: What’s the status of Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett’s effort to mediate between Russia and Ukraine?
Shalom Lipner: It all started with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who asked Bennett to get involved, and Russian President Vladimir Putin has been willing to see him. Bennett has gone back and forth with the parties for a number of weeks now, and the calls continue to happen. Very little has been divulged about what’s been said in those conversations. I think it’s unlikely that he’s going to mediate a deal, exactly, but he’s in a good position to deliver messages between the parties. After all, Bennett’s in a unique place; he’s the only Western leader to have actually seen Putin personally since the conflict began. With the possible exception of Turkey, Israel seems to be the only party that has been able to engage the two sides simultaneously.
OR: I think a lot of Americans would have been surprised to discover that Israel has such a close relationship with Russia, given its even-closer ties to the United States. Explain how Israel’s managed to keep both sides friendly.
Lipner: Israeli spokespersons have repeatedly protested against the suggestion that Israel is a neutral party in the Ukraine conflict. But it has come as a surprise to almost everybody that tiny Israel has become a pivot in this Cold War rematch.
The explanation for how it has starts with the fact that there are Israeli expatriate or Jewish communities in both Ukraine and Russia, whose welfare is of concern to Israel. Over the years, Putin has also taken a very strong interest in Israel because there are a million former Soviet or Russian citizens living here. Putin’s been here, and he’s built an affinity. There are personal relationships. So that helps explain why Israel has been comfortable acting as a mediator.
The other part of the explanation lies is the fact that Russia is Israel’s de facto neighbor on the other side of the Golan Heights. With Russia controlling Syria’s airspace, and Israel conducting airstrikes against Iranian assets there, Israel has needed to work with the Russians on deconfliction—that is, to make sure it’s planes don’t encounter Russian planes in the sky.
Finally, I don’t think we can detach this conversation from the growing sense throughout the Middle East that America is becoming less engaged in the region. The shift has been happening for years. You had the Bush administration declaring “mission accomplished” and losing interest in Iraq. You had the Obama administration’s failure to enforce a red line when Syria used chemical weapons on its people. You had President Donald Trump running to turn tail from the region. Now, after Afghanistan, people are hedging their bets. They’re not necessarily looking to jump sides. I don’t think most of America’s traditional allies in the Middle East are all of a sudden saying, “We’re going to cast our lot with Russia.” But I do think they’re looking after interests that could be exposed if the United States decides not to actively engage. People in the region are signaling to Washington, “We would prefer to dedicate ourselves totally to Pax Americana. But we can’t do that unless America steps up.”
In the Middle East, one lesson a lot of people have drawn from the Ukraine conflict is the importance of self-reliance. They’ve begun thinking that they can’t really depend on anybody too much or exclusively. We’ve just seen the circumstances in which we might have to go it alone, and we have to take whatever steps that might require.
OR: What does Israel hope to get out of its role as mediator?
Lipner: Three things. One, there’s an honest desire on the part of Bennett and Israel to actually be constructive and bring this war to an end. Two, it could help Israel in terms of its international standing. And three, it creates space for Israel to continue this balancing act.
OR: Israeli government officials may not like the word neutrality, but a lot of people have criticized Israel for not seeming more sympathetic to the devastation suffered by Ukraine. After all, Israel has a native-born Ukrainian in its cabinet. And Ukraine is the only other country in the world besides Israel to have had a Jewish president and a Jewish prime minister at the same time. Israel, moreover, was built as a refuge for the despised and has a history of a small country attacked by bigger more powerful ones.
Lipner: Israel has done a delicately choreographed dance. In the beginning of the crisis, there was some dissonance. Bennett’s foreign minister, Yair Lapid, was much more unequivocal and condemnatory of the Russians than Bennett himself was. But since then, I think the government has caught its stride. Israel has stepped up in multiple ways. You see it on the humanitarian level, where it’s letting in a lot of refugees. And it’s set up a $6.5 million field hospital outside Lviv, with a staff of 100. No other country has done that.
OR: But $6.5 million is small potatoes.
Lipner: I think it’s hard in fog of war to separate what’s real from what not. Even Ukraine and Russia have made some conflicting statements. At one point, Zelensky said that Israel’s not being supportive enough. But soon thereafter, his government issued a clarification saying, “We’re very grateful for everything Israel has done.” The truth is that there are a lot of different pieces to Israel’s response. I don’t think anybody’s got it perfect, but Israelis’ hearts are very much in the right place. There’s even been evidence of the government denying safe haven to the Russian Jewish oligarchs who tried to flee here.
OR: Israel is currently run by a precarious coalition of lots of parties. Is there dissent within the government on Ukraine policy?
Lipner: No. If you see dissent at all, it’s over the specifics of what measures should be taken. I think everybody knows who’s guilty in this crisis. And at the end of the day, everyone in Israel knows it has no alternative to siding with the United States and NATO. Some people have made a false dichotomy between realpolitik and values, suggesting that our values are aligned with the West but political considerations require us to be a bit more cautious. The truth, however, is that even when it comes to realpolitik, there’s no question about which side Israel must be on. Who’s the guarantor of Israel’s security, diplomatically, economically, and militarily? Everyone knows the answer. So it’s no surprise that even when Bennett went to Moscow the first time, he coordinated his trip with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. He talked to the French. He talked to the White House.
OR: What about public opinion? How is Israel’s neutrality act playing domestically?
Lipner: The reaction has been mixed. The majority of people support Bennett’s effort to mediate. At the same time, a majority is not optimistic that he’ll be successful. But there’s an understanding of the reasons why he’s embarked on that course.
OR: What about Israel’s allies in Europe and the United States? Have they been supportive of Israel’s position?
Lipner: Again, it’s mixed. As I said, Bennett and Lapid have been careful to consult with the leaders of the West. Still, there have seen some cases of blowback and criticism.
OR: As Russia becomes ever-more isolated, will Israel’s balancing act become increasingly difficult?
Lipner: Yes, I think it will become untenable. As Putin becomes even more of a pariah and people become even more skeptical of the ability of these conversations to actually produce fruit, pressure on Israel will rise to give up on mediation.
OR: Do you think the Israeli the government has gotten things more or less right so far?
Lipner: I feel a degree of disappointment. Anything that creates a situation whereby Israel is perceived as being neutral on this crisis is a loss. Israel is doing a lot of good things, on the humanitarian level and through mediation. But neutrality is not a good look. If people look at Israel and see that, it’s a problem.
OR: Talk about the significance of today’s meeting in Sde Boker between Israel and the foreign ministers of Bahrain, Egypt, Morocco, and the United Arab Emirates. A couple of years ago, it seemed like the United States was driving the Abraham Accords. Now you have Israel bringing together U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken with the U.A.E. foreign minister, when until recently they weren’t speaking to each other.
Lipner: It’s remarkable. I think that at the beginning of the Biden administration, there was some hesitation to own the Abraham Accords. And I said then that it’s important for Biden to get over the nomenclature and the ownership of the original deal and to make it his own. Now, a couple of years later, we are starting to see Washington say, “This is a win-win situation for all the partners and for the United States. And we should find a way to leverage that.”
But you do now have tensions between the United States and its partners in the region. Today’s conversation was about creating a regional security infrastructure involving those partners. All the countries involved would like to have the United States on board, and it’s good that the Americans were in the room today. But the other parties aren’t sure that the United States wants to commit.