Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid has decided to show Moscow that he will not be pushed around by Russian President Vladimir Putin. It is a strategy that, for all its moral weight, could damage Israel’s long-term security interests even as it plays into the hands of Lapid’s political opponent, former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Lapid has been in crisis mode since Russia last month declared to dissolve the Russian branch of the Jewish Agency for Israel, a quasi-governmental organization representing Israeli interests abroad.
“This is a grave development that could negatively affect diplomatic ties between Jerusalem and Moscow,” Lapid told the Kremlin.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, when Israel had no diplomatic representation in Russia, the Jewish Agency played an important role in expediting the mass immigration of Jews to Israel.
However, Israel now has an embassy in Moscow whose diplomats can issue visas, and there are daily flights between Tel Aviv and Moscow. The agency’s role in Russia is largely symbolic, functioning mainly as a landing spot for unemployed politicians and bureaucrats.
However, closing it down sends a message to the government of Israel and its leader. Last week, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Maria Zakharova explained this message in an interview on Russian television.
“Unfortunately, in recent months, we have heard, at the level of statements, unconstructive and, most importantly, biased rhetoric from Tel Aviv,” she said.
She was referring to a particular statement: In early April, in the wake of a televised report of the massacre of Ukrainian civilians by Russian troops in a suburb of Kyiv, Lapid — at the time Israel’s foreign minister — delivered a ringing denunciation of “Russian barbarity” and its commission of war crimes.
This indictment was sincere, heartfelt and in character. It was also self-indulgent and potentially politically ruinous.
Israel is fighting a prolonged war in the skies above Syria, the aim of which is to prevent Iran from arming its proxy militant group, Hezbollah. Putin controls these skies. Israel’s tacit alliance with the Russian president is a major part of Israel’s national security doctrine. The first rule in such partnerships is that spitting in the face of one’s partner is bad form and can have consequences.
Lapid evidently did not think that this rule applied to him, especially because he was speaking his truth.
However, he was mistaken in this. Since almost calling Putin a war criminal, Israel has been the target of continuous blowback. In May, for the first time, a Russian anti-air battery fired at an Israeli plane in Syria. Israel kept this secret at the time, and now says it was a “one-off,” yet the timing was suspicious.
Not long afterward, Israel attacked the runway of Damascus International Airport as part of its interdiction campaign. Russia condemned the mission and spoke of bringing Israel to account before the UN Security Council. This initiative was followed by Putin’s highly publicized trip to Iran, where he met with Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Lapid does not deserve all the blame for the rift with Russia. Putin might be seeking to tone down the connection with Jerusalem now that he and Iran have mutual oil interests. It is also possible that shutting down the Jewish Agency plays to the Russian suspicion that Israel is trying to poach many of its best and brightest citizens.
Putin might be planning to sustain the chill until Nov. 1, when an Israeli election is scheduled. He is known for sometimes interfering in other people’s politics. Lapid has already told the world what he thinks of Putin’s Russia. Lapid is also too close to the administration of US President Joe Biden and the Western consensus for Putin’s comfort.
In contrast, Netanyahu, who is hoping to regain his old job as prime minister, is a reliable longtime partner.
He and Putin share an understanding of the world unclouded by sentiment. Netanyahu would never let moral qualms about Ukraine, if he has any, interfere with what he perceives to be Israel’s national interests.
The polls currently place Netanyahu ahead, but perhaps not far enough to establish a ruling coalition. Putin would like to put him over the top. Making Lapid look bad in his first weeks in office is a campaign contribution, and Netanyahu knows what to do with gifts.
On Tuesday last week, he told reporters that “the measured, balanced and responsible relationship” he forged with Putin and maintained for years is now in a crisis that could endanger Israel’s security.
However opportunistic, Netanyahu is not wrong.
Lapid’s denunciations of Russia reflect “a combination of amateurism, irresponsibility and arrogance,” Netanyahu said.
Translate that into Hebrew and you have the right-wing Likud party’s talking points for the upcoming election.
Zev Chafets is a journalist and author of 14 books. He was a senior aide to former Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin and the founding managing editor of The Jerusalem Report.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers