opinion
Israel Should Stay Out of the War
in Ukraine
BY JONATHAN S. TOBIN
ight months into Russia’s brutal and illegal
invasion of Ukraine, two things are clear about
the confl ict.

One is that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s
launching of the largest land war in Europe since
1945 was a crime that has largely united the civ-
ilized world in revulsion. Another is that no one
seems to have any realistic idea of how it can be
brought to an end.

Note that I used the word “realistic.” By this I
mean a solution that doesn’t require the com-
plete military defeat of a nuclear power that is
unlikely to accept abject humiliation. That would
also rule out a policy predicated on an attempt
at regime change in Moscow, a reckless notion
with unknowable and possibly catastrophic con-
sequences. Of course, Ukrainian President Volodymyr
Zelenskyy, whose courageous leadership has
helped Kyiv mount a resolute and surprisingly
successful resistance to the onslaught, does have
a vision of how the war will end. He says Ukraine
will keep fi ghting until a military victory chases the
Russians off of every inch of soil that his country
controlled in February, and perhaps even those
areas it lost to Russia in 2014.

In pursuit of that goal, he has obtained the kind
of massive military and intelligence assistance that
is reminiscent of the West’s commitment to the
wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Biden adminis-
tration had already committed itself to spending
$54 billion on aid to Ukraine, with the implicit
promise of continuing that fl ow.

But that isn’t enough for Zelenskyy and his
admirers. Not only does he want even more
American weaponry, the supply of which has
already stripped active U.S. forces of most of their
reserves of armaments; he is also continuing to
clamor for Israel to join the confl ict by sending Kyiv
some of its most sophisticated weapons systems.

Pressure on Israel
There is a growing chorus of criticism of the Jewish
state for its attempt to chart a middle course
between pure neutrality and becoming an open
participant in the fi ghting. Israel has sent consider-
able humanitarian assistance to Ukraine and taken
in refugees, yet has stopped short of military aid or
involvement. Former Prisoner of Zion and Jewish
Agency head Natan Sharansky has chided the
Jewish state for “being afraid” of Russia. He’s right
about that. But Israel has good reason to worry
16 OCTOBER 27, 2022 | JEWISHEXPONENT.COM
about escalating tensions with Putin.

There is a sizable Jewish population that still
lives in Russia which, up until this year, seemed to
enjoy Putin’s protection. The war has called that
into question.

Moscow’s heavy-handed eff orts to signal Israel
that it would pay a price if it did more to help
Ukraine has included threats against the Jewish
Agency’s operations in the country.

Russia also has a large military presence in
Syria. Putin has acquiesced to Israel’s military
carrying out strikes against Iranian, Hezbollah and
other terrorist targets inside that state without
repercussions. This would be put at risk if Israel
joined Ukraine’s war.

More important than Sharansky’s stand is the
criticism coming from Congress. A number of
lawmakers have attacked Israel for its position on
Ukraine. They, like Zelenskyy, dismiss the fact that Israel
has done a lot to help Ukraine, even off ering it an
early-warning system that could help it defend
its population against Russian attacks. Like the
Ukrainian leader, they want Israel to “get off the
sidelines.” It’s worth questioning why, ever since the fi ght-
ing started, Israel’s position is the focus of so
much interest. With the U.S. and Europe on its
side, Ukraine doesn’t need Israel.

However, Zelenskyy, in particular, seems to
have devoted an inordinate amount of attention to
pressuring Israel. That included a virtual speech
to the Knesset, in which he falsifi ed the history
of the Holocaust by claiming that Ukrainians had
stood with the Jews during the Shoah, instead of
being the most enthusiastic of collaborators with
the Nazis in helping to kill hundreds of thousands
of Jewish victims.

Had any other European leader uttered such an
appalling lie, he or she would have been roundly
condemned and treated like a pariah by world
Jewry. But Zelenskyy, who is Jewish, and is seen
as a 21st-century version of Winston Churchill by
many otherwise sober observers, got away with it.

And the pressure on Israel, which is always judged
by a double standard on any issue, continues to
grow, That’s because support for Ukraine transcends
the usual sympathy that underdogs elicit. Despite
the lionization of Zelenskyy and the justifi ed admi-
ration for his country’s resistance, Ukraine is far
from a model of democracy and human rights. In
fact, it is arguably as corrupt as most former Soviet
republics. The impulse to romanticize it as a uniquely noble
cause involves more than a belief that sovereign
nations should not be invaded by larger neigh-
bors, and goes beyond outrage over Russian
atrocities. The accusation that Russia helped steal the
2016 presidential election for former President
Donald Trump — a myth that many still believe,
despite the collusion charges turning out to be a
hoax — helps fuel anger at Moscow. Without that,
and the fact that a conversation with Zelenskyy
was the excuse for the Democrats’ fi rst attempt
to impeach Trump, it’s possible the American
reaction to Putin’s invasion would have resem-
bled the passive indiff erence on the part of the
Obama administration to his seizure of Crimea and
Eastern Ukraine in 2014.

At the same time, many traditional foreign-policy
Oleksii Liskonih / iStock / Getty Images Plus
E



opinion
hawks consider the war to be in America’s inter-
est, since it is helping to weaken Russia — a geo-
political foe of the United States and ally of China,
an even more dangerous potential enemy. From
that point of view, it is a grand military exercise
in which Western military and intelligence capa-
bilities are being field-tested in real time against
Russian materiel and that of its Iranian allies, who
have supplied drones to their ally in the conflict
in Syria.

The above argument is undermined, however,
by the spectacle of Russian incompetence that
has rendered untenable the idea that it poses a
conventional, as opposed to a nuclear, threat to
the West.

Dismissing talk of peace
The international community has always opposed
allowing Israel to achieve the kind of complete
military victory over its enemies that would force
them to give up their struggle against its exis-
tence. World opinion also dismisses terrorist
attacks on the lives of Israelis as being part of
a “cycle of violence” that ought to be stopped,
regardless of who is in the right.

In contrast, many otherwise sensible people
think Ukrainian ambitions for a military victory
over Russia should be indulged, including if that
means, as even President Joe Biden recently
acknowledged, a risk of a nuclear confrontation.

Anger and disgust with Russia are justified, as
are economic sanctions, even if they are clearly
hurting the West more than the Putin regime. Yet,
now that Ukraine’s extinction is no longer possi-
ble, a rational rather than an emotional response
to the situation shouldn’t involve an open-ended
commitment to an endless war that — Zelenskyy’s
boasts and Biden’s promises notwithstanding —
isn’t going to end in a total Ukrainian victory or
anything like it.

Instead of ganging up on Israel in an effort to
force it to join a war that has nothing to do with its
security, perhaps the virtue-signalers should start
considering whether it wouldn’t be more sensible
for the United States to begin exploring a way to
end the war. Instead, they are supporting policies
geared to ensure it goes on indefinitely, and
speak as if advocacy for a negotiated settlement
is Russian propaganda. They have no coherent
exit strategy or achievable goal and accuse those
who point out this inconvenient fact of being
insufficiently supportive of the cause of freedom.

The idea that Israel should be dragged into this
morass simply for the sake of a dubious romanti-
cizing of the conflict, to assert its status as a world
power or any other reason is as irresponsible as
it is reckless. JE
Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of JNS.

Israelis Should Vote Their
Conscience No Matter What
BY DAVID M. WEINBERG
W ith only a few days to go until the Israeli
election, the message one hears from almost
all the various party leaders is: Vote for me to block
the other guy. Vote for me to stymie the other guy’s
potential coalition.

Such “tactical” voting is rotten. It completely
ignores the critical diplomatic, defense, economic
and social issues at hand. It guts Israeli politics of
any serious ideological argument. It reduces our
serial election campaigns to yet another round of
sumo wrestling. It is a mind-numbing approach to
determining Israel’s future.

Worse still is the oft-heard admonition not to
“waste” your vote, not to vote for a political party
that teeters at the so-called “threshold.” (The cur-
rent electoral threshold, the minimum for gaining
Knesset representation, is 3.25% of all valid votes.

In practice, this means that a party that fails to gain
votes equivalent to about four Knesset seats is
wiped-off the political map.)
This, too, is a terrible contention. It strips voters
of their right to vote their conscience in an unadul-
terated manner. It reduces election day to tactical
play, instead of it being a celebration of democ-
racy in action. It is a dispiriting approach to Zionist
and Jewish political commitment.

I say, forget the “threshold.” Be a strategic and
principled, not a tactical and cynical, voter. Vote
your conscience, even if it means your ballot might
“go to waste.”
Voting in such upright fashion is a healthy and
satisfying form of political engagement. Selecting
the political party and political leader that most
closely represents one’s worldview without slav-
ish reference to the latest polls proffered by
biased media outlets and various political huck-
sters is a corrective to the cynicism that almost all
Israelis feel about the political system.

It might mean that your vote “goes to waste,”
but guess what? It could also mean your vote
does not go to waste. If enough people in your
“sector” vote their conscience and best ideologi-
cal judgment, your preferred political party might
be elected to the Knesset. Your vote could make
the difference.

And what’s the worst that can happen? Israel
seems headed towards another political stale-
mate, with repeat elections likely in April 2023.

So, you’ll get another chance at that time to recon-
sider your vote and make a greater impact on the
overall result. (And perhaps, hopefully, by then the
range of political party options and especially their
leaders will be better and broader.)
To be clear, I am not suggesting that Israelis vote
for any one of the two dozen super-fringe factions
that will have ballot slips on Nov. 1. Doing so would
be truly silly. These splinters are too wacky to be
taken seriously and too tiny to have any chance
whatsoever of being elected to the Knesset.

But I am suggesting that left-wing Israelis who
believe in the principles espoused by Zehava
Galon of Meretz should vote as a matter of princi-
ple for Meretz, even though the pollsters question
whether the party will cross the threshold. They
should not be off put by the pollsters.

I am suggesting that Arab Israelis who are
impressed by the bravery of Mansour Abbas of
Ra’am in joining an Israeli government (the first
time that an Israeli Arab party has done so), and by
his achievements in government, should vote as a
matter of principle for Ra’am. They should not be
deterred by doubts that the party can surmount the
threshold this time (nor should they be threatened
by radicals in their sector for identifying with Ra’am).

I am suggesting that right-wing and/or reli-
gious-Zionist Israelis who deem Ayelet Shaked to
be an honest, effective and weighty conservative
leader should vote as a matter of principle for
Yamina. They should not be daunted by threshold
uncertainties, nor frightened by angry accusations
of “disloyalty” to the Netanyahu bloc. If enough
people in this sector vote their conscience and
best ideological judgment, Yamina may indeed be
elected to the Knesset.

The same goes for potential voters for Merav
Michaeli. Her version of the Labor Party, and
each of the above-mentioned parties, has a clear
identity and political history and there are tens of
thousands of votes behind it, making it a passable
choice. Alas, Israeli voters face another muddy election
in a convoluted Israeli political system where
negative campaigning and personal animosities
are at a peak. Most politicians are selling fallacies
instead of tackling real issues with concrete solu-
tions. They are selling tactical calculations instead
of purposeful policies. They tell Israelis to vote to
sidetrack the other guy.

Israelis ought to ignore such soul-destroying rat-
a-tat and proudly vote their principles, even defi-
antly vote their conscience. Worse come to worst,
there will soon be another election. JE
David M. Weinberg is a senior fellow at the Kohelet
Forum and Habithonistim: Israel’s Defense and
Security Forum. This article was originally pub-
lished by Israel Hayom.

JEWISHEXPONENT.COM 17