Thus, Israel was the only country to withdraw its ambassador from Vienna in 1986, when Kurt Waldheim – the former UN secretary-general, who was later revealed to have been an officer in the Wehrmacht – was elected president of Austria.

Even in 2000, Israel recalled its ambassador from Vienna when the Austrian Freedom Party, with roots in the Nazi regime, joined the coalition government. Once again, we were among the few in the world who placed an ethical stance above cold political considerations – and we sent a clear message about what was acceptable and unacceptable when it came to Jewish safety.

This is how Israel has acted for years: a Jewish state with a historical memory that obliges it to take a stand for our people and against racism and xenophobia of any kind. But today, 25 years later, I’m concerned about the future of Israel’s moral compass and its Foreign Ministry. The excellent individuals in the Israeli Foreign Ministry are increasingly being asked to implement policies that contradict everything we believe in, everything Israel once represented.

When Israel voted at the UN against the proposal calling for the preservation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity – alongside countries like Russia, North Korea, and of course the United States under Donald Trump – it was another painful testament to the dark place into which we have descended.

But it doesn’t stop here.

New policy directives

The Israeli Foreign Ministry continues to receive new policy directives that shame its legacy. For example, the directive from Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar to work on strengthening ties with far-right parties in Europe.

These are the same parties that continue the path of neo-Nazi movements. Today, they hide behind an anti-Muslim facade, which should be a reason to not legitimize them in any case. They cast a thin veil over the antisemitic undertone that simmers beneath the surface, waiting for the right moment to break out.

While in 2000, Israel’s government condemned Europeans for allying with right-wing extremists, in 2025, the Likud has made itself an “observer member” of a grouping of far-right European parties.

Government ministers are continuing to cozy up with those who are willing to downplay their hatred for Jews in order to gain legitimacy. This is alongside other activities that shame our nation, such as the support for the ethnic cleansing carried out by Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabakh region.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry is composed of good and dedicated individuals who chose a career primarily focused on representing their country and fighting for it. But today, every Israeli diplomat must take a moment for self-reflection: can they continue to serve a policy that contradicts the Jewish and democratic values for which they joined the Ministry? And if they do, shouldn’t they raise their opposition to the minister’s directive?

Israel was once a moral beacon. Our founding vision was to be a light among nations. It was core to our identity to never forget. We must not lose our way, and the responsibility for this does not lie solely with the leaders – it also falls on the public and our public servants, especially those in the Foreign Ministry. These are the individuals whose role is to implement the policies of the Israeli government on the international stage.

The legitimization of racist and antisemitic parties and support for Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine are the diplomatic equivalents of an illegal order with a black flag flying above it. There are things that every principled person must stand against and say clearly: enough is enough.

The article was published on March 17th 2025 in The Jerusalem Post.

הפוסט Israel’s Foreign Policy Has Lost Its Moral Compass הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

When Russian President Vladimir Putin offered the world his prolonged alternative history lesson, days before invading Ukraine, he dedicated a significant part of his televised speech to “Ukrainian neo-Nazism.” Two days later, when he announced the beginning of his “special operation” in Ukraine designed to protect the “suffering people in Donbas,” he mentioned “denazification” as one of its key goals, along with the demilitarization of Ukraine.

For anyone who hasn’t followed Russian TV during the last eight years, Putin’s claims might sound weird. But if you’d absorbed hours of endless debates about “hereditary Ukrainian neo-Nazism,” stories about crucified Russian boys and the Ukrainian Russophobe hordes who assault peaceful families in eastern Ukraine – all fake news – it is considerably easier to understand the context of Putin’s rhetoric.

According to a 2018 study by the Ukrainian Crisis Media Center, between 2014-2017 a full third of all the news on the main Russian TV channels focused on Ukraine, and more than 90 percent of the mentions were negative. These were the five main narratives most energetically promoted by state-run Russian media platforms:

-There is a civil war in Ukraine: 33 percent

-Ukraine is a failed independent state: 22 percent

-Russia helps Donbas: 15 percent

-Ukraine is full of irrational Russia-haters: 10 percent

-Fascists and extremists are destroying Ukraine: 7 percent

As we can see now, every single one of these narratives are currently used by the Russian government to explain the necessity of the invasion and its uncompromising nature.

Since those fateful days of the Maidan revolution in February 2014, when Putin’s satrap Victor Yanukovich was ousted from power, the Kremlin has depicted Ukraine as a dangerous, radical place run by fascists and neo-Nazis. Over the last eight years the term “neo-Nazis” has been replaced by plain “Nazis,” and that’s the toxic term that Russian military correspondents, talk show hosts, analysts and politicians now use in regards to Ukraine.

And it wasn’t just Ukraine that was tarred as “neo-Nazi,” “pro-Nazi” or just “Nazi” during the last eight years. Europe at large, and specifically Poland and Germany, were described by Russian propagandists as leaning towards Nazism, while Russia was depicted as the last bastion against it, just like in June 1941 when Hitler attacked Soviet Union.

This last point is especially significant in creating today’s mirror-narrative of “us [Russia] versus the Nazis [Ukraine].” The memory of the Great Patriotic War, which ‘begins’ in the Russian telling from Hitler’s invasion of the USSR in June 1941, is still very much alive in Russian-speaking communities around the world.

Everyone has a grandfather or a grandmother who fought in the Red Army, died by the hands of Nazis in Belarus, Ukraine, Russia, was evacuated to Central Asian republics and barely survived, starved in the siege of Leningrad or joined the partisans in the woods. While Victory Day, the 9th of May, was always a beloved, bittersweet holiday in the Soviet era, in Putin’s Russia it became the calendar’s only truly ideological holiday, since May Day and October Revolution Day had lost their resonance.

In Putin’s Russia, each year the parades became grander, and the rhetoric around them – more aggressive and edgy. A common slogan is: “Mojem povtorit” – We can do it again. It means that modern Russia can repeat the Soviet victory over the Nazis, wherever they are and in which ever form they take.

It contained a threat, and a hidden promise. By promoting the narrative of “Russia against the Nazis,” the Russian leadership also exempted itself from any comparisons with fascism, turning assumptions into facts: the victors, those who liberated Europe from the Nazis, cannot be wrongdoers by definition, while the Europe that succumbed to the Nazi invasion and was unable to protect itself still harbored the Nazi virus.

The narrative is black-and-white: The Ukrainians were antisemites and Nazis, while the Russians were Red Army liberators who are still fighting against Nazism today. All this flies in the face of the obvious facts that all Soviet citizens served in the Red Army, including Ukrainians, while antisemitism was widespread in both the Russian Empire and in Soviet Union.

At this point the Israeli connection comes to mind. Among 1.2 million Russian-speaking Israelis, there were and are many Red Army veterans, real heroes who marched all the way to Berlin, who liberated Auschwitz and the capitals of Europe. Victory Day is still celebrated by many Israelis who made aliya from the former Soviet Union, who know well that if not for that hard-won victory, there could be no future for the Jewish people anywhere.

This sentiment, and the recognition of ex-Soviet Jews’ heritage, encompassing not only the Holocaust, but also fighting in the Red Army (over 650,000 Jews fought, many volunteering to go to the front) has been exploited by Moscow to recruit Israel and its institutions in its narrative war against Ukraine and Europe.

While European leaders refused to join the Moscow May Day military parades over the last few years, rejecting Putin’s policies, Israel’s prime minister eagerly cooperated. In 2018, Benjamin Netanyahu was one of just two Western leaders who marched side by side with President Putin on May 9th. The second one was Serbian President Aleksander Vucic.

“We will never allow history to be rewritten, and we will never let anyone forget who saved the world from slavery and extermination. It was the USSR that determined the outcome of the Second World War, but today they [the West/Europe] are trying to rewrite the history, and we will not allow this to be done.

“The same ugly features emerge as new threats: selfishness and intolerance, aggressive nationalism and claims to exclusivity. We understand the gravity of these threats,” opined Putin, addressing the Russian people that day.

By involving Israel and Israeli organizations in this narrative, Russia was trying to hold on to a very important card: It had Jews on its side, and so it spoke in their name, too, attacking acts of antisemitism that occurred in the still ‘Nazi-contaminated’ parts of Europe – Ukraine, Poland and Germany, among others.

There is no doubt that in recent years antisemitism has been on the march around the globe – mostly in Europe and in U.S. – as reflected in the data collected by many monitoring organizations. There is no reason to be oblivious to or forgiving of the fact that in Ukraine, in common with many other countries on the continent, there are neo-Nazi and extreme right groups who march with torches, brandish swastika tattoos and incite if not commit violence. These kinds of displays cannot be tolerated, not in Ukraine, not in the U.S., and not in Russia.

However, when these facts are inflated beyond any proportion and interpreted as equal to the Nazi threat to humanity in 1939, Israel should be alarmed. When Russia raises a false “denazification” flag to justify invading a democracy with a thriving Jewish community, a sizable population of Israeli citizens, a Jewish president, Jewish MPs and legislation that criminalizes antisemitism, Israel should stand up and resist.

Putin’s “de-nazification” drive is both false and dangerous. It equates the Ukrainian government led by Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the Third Reich, and the Holocaust to the “genocide” of Russians in Donbas – both unfounded, spurious and revisionist allegations.

And most importantly, when Moscow uses this same rhetoric to bomb Ukrainian cities and kill Ukrainian citizens, Israel, the “Never Again nation,” should always be the first to stand up against it, to decline handouts from the oligarchs in Putin’s clique, and to reject rhetoric that leverages Jewish suffering to whitewash atrocities and aggression.

The op-ed was written in Haaertz in March 2022.

הפוסט The Real Danger of Putin’s ‘Nazi’ Slur for Ukraine, Israel and the World הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

The world order consolidated in the wake of World War II is based on liberal ideas, among them international organizations dedicated to advancing peace and cooperation, protection of human rights, adherence to international law, scientific progress, freedom of navigation and prohibition of occupying others’ territory and population. This is the world order with which one can begin to imagine nations joining together to confront shared challenges, such as pandemics and the climate crisis. Today, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is putting this order to the test.

It is true that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is not the first challenge to this global order. It has faced wars, conflicts, human rights violations, conquests and occupations. Lately, however, it seems that the lessons of World War II have been forgotten as we witness growing threats to the current order from authoritarian-populist illiberal leaders driven by xenophobia, undermining democracy, questioning their state’s legal underpinnings, nurturing nationalism and promoting “alternative facts.” The struggle for world order today is not waged between states or nations, but rather between worldviews. Putin’s incursion into Ukraine is a major step in this struggle, the results of which could have repercussions on our world and the laws that govern us.

A few years from now, Putin’s invasion could be one of those defining moments in global events of which people ask, “where were you when Putin rolled into Ukraine?” This is a simple question whose answer could succinctly define one’s identity and place in the world. The actions and positions adopted at such defining moments take on great significance and linger for a long time. States remember who stood by their side in times of trouble and offered assistance (just ask the Turks, who remember how Israel helped them following the 1999 earthquake to this day). Israel has not forgotten who voted in favor of the 1947 UN Partition Resolution and who didn’t, and many Israelis still determine their attitudes toward various countries according to their conduct during the Holocaust.

So, where is Israel while Putin is invading Ukraine?

For now, it seems Israel is busy compiling a scorecard – portraying itself as a possible mediator just to walk between the lines and preserve its short-term interests.

Prior to the invasion, Israel tried to lay low and avoid any response to the impending disaster. When it could no longer ignore developments, it expressed support for Ukraine’s territorial integrity, without mentioning Russia. Once Russia invaded, Foreign Minister Yair Lapid issued a clearer statement condemning the Russian invasion, but Prime Minister Naftali Bennett continued to maintain ambiguity as long as he could, and Israel did not accept the US invitation to sign on as a sponsor to a UN Security Council condemnation of Russia, much to the chagrin of Washington, Israel’s closest ally. Then, Israel announced it would vote in favor of the condemnation in the UN General Assembly, which it did, even helping the US recruit other states to join.

Israel has many considerations to juggle – freedom to operate in Syrian skies, relations with Russia and Ukraine, the safety of the Jewish communities in these countries, a series of alliances with Western states, potential economic repercussions, the impact on Iran’s nuclear program, and more. This tactical scorekeeping is indeed complex and of some importance, but the bigger picture is sometimes simpler.

Israel’s decision will have long-term implications for its relations with the US and Europe, which are its closest friends and provide it with the vital support it needs for its security, economy and identity. They, too, are asking where Israel stands.

Israel’s choice also has implications for its ethical-normative position in the world and its soft power. Over the years, Israel – established on the ruins of the Holocaust – positioned itself as leading the struggle to absorb the lessons of World War II, as the “sole democracy in the Middle East,” and as a developed western-liberal state. Does the State of Israel seek to keep nurturing its ethical identity in accordance with these values?

Israel’s choice also has an impact on its mutual relationships with other countries. At such defining moments, a country’s core character comes into play. Other than the US, Europe, Ukraine and Russia, Israel is being watched by Cyprus, Greece, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates to see which way it leans in relation to the world order. Can it be relied on in times of trouble? Where does it draw a red line? With which ideological camp does it affiliate?

Israel’s choice also has implications for the identity it projects domestically. Israel’s citizens are looking at their government’s behavior, at the values and preferences it reflects. The Israeli government’s decisions regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine are the type that shape a country’s identity. Will they enhance Israel’s fragile democracy or push it closer towards illiberalism?

The singular reason for Israel to avoid completely allying itself with Ukraine is to preserve its ability to respond to Ukraine’s request to serve as a mediator with Russia. Indeed, in the past few days, we have seen how Bennett hosted German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Israel, talked on the phone with Putin and Zelensky, visited Putin in Moscow and went from there to brief Scholz in Berlin, after another phone call to Zelensky. If the motivation for these activities is to fulfill Zelensky’s request for Israel to assist him in mediating and bringing a quick end to the war and occupation, then it is the right thing to do – morally and politically.

These actions would then have to be coordinated with the US, Israel’s European friends, and Ukraine; Israel should adhere to the liberal-democratic world order and values, even as a mediator; And, it must not mix its own tactical interests with the work of mediation. Reports that the Bennett-Putin meeting included discussion about the Jewish communities in Russia and Ukraine, Israel’s freedom of action in Syria, and even Israel’s objections to the revival of the Iran nuclear deal, is a bad sign. It signals that Israel still focuses on its own tactical interests, continues to calculate short-term implications, and uses the role of a mediator as an excuse to refuse to take a clear stand. I truly hope this is not the case.

Yes, Israel is weighing many tactical considerations, just as every state does when called on to make a decision. It appears that in this case, despite its own wrongdoing and major challenge to the liberal order (the continued conflict with the Palestinians), it is incumbent on Israel to make a strategic decision about where it stands in the struggle for the existing world order. Is it on the side of the bullies or the one that promotes cooperation? Both ethically and for realpolitik considerations, Israel must take a clear and decisive stand on the side of Ukraine, on the side of Europe and the US, on the side of Russians who oppose the war and the Poles helping the refugees. Israel must stand on the side of peace.

The article was published in JPost in March 2022.

הפוסט Russia-Ukraine war may be a defining moment, Israel must make a choice – opinion הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

While media outlets all over the world counted down the hours before the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine as if it were a New Year’s celebration on Times Square, Russian politicians repeatedly denied this scenario and Ukrainians carried on with their daily lives.

As foreign embassies and companies were being evacuated, the Ukrainian government, army command and parliament stayed put; not because they didn’t fear war and death, but because they assessed that war was not imminent. At the same time, foreign leaders planned visits to Kyiv for February 16, February 17 and dates in the future.

This did not stop the speculations, apocalyptic predictions and media frenzy surrounding the activity on the border between Russia and Ukraine, probably because – along with questionable reports in British tabloids that suddenly became a credible source of information – US President Joe Biden himself stood firmly behind the “imminent invasion” theory.

There is little doubt that President Biden was relying on the American intelligence interpretation of what was happening on the Russian-Ukrainian border, yet it was left up to the media to corroborate the information provided to the president from other sources, pose questions, raise doubts and simply do its job. While nobody in the West doubts that Russian President Vladimir Putin wages a hybrid war that includes massive use of disinformation and manipulations, it appears that the other side uses psychological warfare and its own disinformation for political and other gains.

First of all, let’s set the record straight: no one denies that the escalation between Russia and Ukraine is very real and that a large number of Russian soldiers and military equipment are currently stationed near its borders with Ukraine. The current Russian military exercise that involves many thousands of troops is not the first – in fact, it is the third military exercise of this magnitude to have taken place during the last 12 months, yet it is the largest exercise in Europe for the past three decades. For the time being, some Western leaders and experts estimate that according to intelligence data the war is imminent, while others, such as the UK secretary of state, believe that the current phase of escalation could “drag on for months.” Though Russia launched a war in 2008 against Georgia and annexed Crimea in 2014, this does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that a Russian invasion of Ukraine is imminent and inevitable, according to experts.

Dr. Sagi Elbaz, a political communication researcher and lecturer at Oranim College who has written several books on the media and political reporting in Israel, believes that Israeli media coverage of the developments on the Russian-Ukrainian border has been quite shallow while many important questions have not been asked.

“As a communications researcher, I do not feel that the media is giving me the full picture. If someone says that there are 150,000 troops on the border, what is the source for that? Also, there was hardly any background and context – is there any connection to American exercises in the Black Sea, how is NATO expansion seen in Russia, what is happening in Ukraine, etc. The media should not focus just on one narrative, it should provide the full picture, to interview people on both sides and that was not done,” Elbaz told The Media Line.

But is it really possible to provide the full picture, to verify all the details and to get to the bottom of things in our current world since it is often impossible to tell right from left and truth from fake? For the last few years, the world has been awash with disinformation campaigns and the search for actual facts is getting harder. During the war in Syria, for example, the media has often been shaken by the blunt attempts of both sides to lie, manipulate and use fake news in order to defend the narrative, and verifying the facts has often been mission impossible.

Yoram Peri, an expert on politics and communications and a professor at the University of Maryland who serves there as director and Kay Chair in Israel Studies at Gildenhorn Institute for Israel Studies, believes that despite the obvious difficulty, it is still possible for the media to perform its duty and to provide balanced and nuanced reporting.

“Anyone who is leaning on the guiding principles of journalism can stand against this stream of fake news and disinformation, even if it sometimes is extremely difficult. I believe that it’s crucial for the reporter to cross-check the facts. In Israel today this principle is dead. Calling different sources? Corroborating the news? This is over. But the thing is that if you have some breaking news that was released by let’s say CBS, you have to look for other sources as well. What does European media say? What do other reliable news sources say? Second of all, a reporter cannot be passive,” Peri told The Media Line.

“One of the awful things that happened with the media today is that it became passive. You receive some information, and then you just publish it as is. Very often the source isn’t even mentioned, especially when we deal with defense and security issues. I believe that it’s crucial for the reporter to reveal the source of information. Don’t just write that the ‘troops are moving.’ Who is the source? Be specific! Check if this source is associated with some specific agenda,” he also said.

“One of the most fascinating things that happened during the last few days, when the West was bracing for war in Ukraine, was Ukraine itself. The country that was supposed to be wiped from the map – according to endless Western experts and pundits – cried out that the doomsday scenario of conquering Kyiv and rolling the Russian tanks all over the country just wasn’t true. So why did nobody in the media in Israel and in the West choose to listen to the Ukrainians,” Peri added.

Elbaz believes that Israeli reporting on the situation in Ukraine has been biased. “We always talk about Putin’s Russia – a great power that has nuclear weapons, while Ukraine is perceived to be a poor state. Its citizens go to Israel to seek jobs, they are engaged in manual labor, and Ukraine is probably seen as a smaller player that is squeezed between the Great Powers. That’s why there was little attention to what was actually happening there,” he said.

Peri points to the sensationalism that has become the most dominant feature of many media outlets. “This is very dangerous. The media, especially in Israel, is chasing sensations, rather than facts. And this is the result – leaning on something that was reported by a British tabloid,” he said.

The current escalation between Russia and Ukraine will probably continue beyond the dates that are circulating in the media. The Russian troops will stay at the border, as well as in Belarus, which has rapidly turned into another Russian base of operations and lost much of its independence; meanwhile, the military confrontation in Eastern Ukraine between the separatists and the Ukrainian army will continue. There might be or might not be a war. The question is whether the media will choose to learn from its current failure and change the optics the next time the dates of a possible invasion are flying around and avoid sensationalism, even if it helps sell papers.

The op-ed was published in JPost in February 2022.

הפוסט The war in Ukraine that hasn’t happened and how the media failed הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

הפוסט International Responses to Annexation: Lessons for Israel from Other Conflicts הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.