Israel’s Delicate Balancing Act on Ukraine and Syria

Israel’s position on the Ukraine war and its stance in Syria reveals a complex yet pragmatic foreign policy shaped by its unique security needs, regional dynamics, and geopolitical alignments. Despite public sympathy for Ukraine, Israel has walked a tightrope, striving to balance its strategic relationships with both the West and Russia while addressing immediate security concerns in Syria.

Israel’s Stance on Ukraine: Hesitant Support Amid Global Pressures

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Israel’s support for Kyiv has been cautious and calibrated. While Israel has aligned with Western nations in providing humanitarian aid and condemning Russia’s aggression at the UN, it has stopped short of providing military aid or participating in sanctions against Moscow. This restraint has drawn criticism, especially as Ukrainian officials, including President Zelenskyy, have repeatedly requested advanced defense systems like the Iron Dome.

However, Israel’s strategic calculus centers on its dependency on Russian cooperation in Syria. Russia’s military presence there grants Moscow significant leverage over Israel’s ability to conduct airstrikes against Iranian and Hezbollah targets. A rupture in Israel-Russia ties could jeopardize Israel’s security operations and embolden adversaries on its northern border.

Beyond geopolitics, domestic considerations also play a role. A significant portion of Israel’s population comprises Russian-speaking immigrants, some of whom harbor favorable views of Putin. Conversely, Israel also has a large Ukrainian-Jewish population, whose advocacy for greater support to Ukraine underscores internal divisions.

Additionally, while Israel has declined to send advanced weaponry, there have been reports of indirect technological support, such as intelligence sharing or private Israeli firms supplying non-lethal defensive assistance. These measures illustrate the fine line Israel is walking, seeking to aid Ukraine without provoking Moscow.

The Syrian Factor: Neutrality with Strings Attached

In Syria, Israel has pursued a policy of strict neutrality in the civil war but with active measures to protect its security. While refraining from taking sides, Israel has conducted hundreds of airstrikes targeting Iranian and Hezbollah forces operating within Syria to prevent hostile entrenchment near its borders. [https://www.timesofisrael.com/anticipating-war-with-hezbollah-israel-weakening-iranian-proxies-in-syria/]

This policy mirrors Israel’s approach to Ukraine in one key respect—maintaining a working relationship with Russia. Moscow’s support for the Assad regime and control over Syrian airspace make Russian-Israeli coordination essential. This reliance has made Israel wary of antagonizing Russia, even as it seeks to counter Iran’s influence.

Interestingly, Israel’s actions in Syria are not purely military. During Operation Good Neighbor (2016–2018), Israel provided humanitarian aid to Syrian civilians near its borders, emphasizing its effort to balance humanitarian and security objectives.

A Balancing Act Rooted in Realpolitik

Critics argue that Israel’s approach reflects a moral failing, particularly in Ukraine, where the stakes for democracy and human rights are stark. However, Israel’s policies are firmly rooted in realpolitik. As a small nation surrounded by adversaries, Israel’s primary focus remains on safeguarding its national security and ensuring freedom of operation in volatile regions like Syria.

Adding to the complexity is Israel’s emerging role as an energy power. With its growing natural gas sector, Israel is positioning itself as a supplier to Europe, offering an alternative to Russian energy. This strategic economic opportunity further underscores the need for careful navigation of its relations with both Ukraine and Russia.

Historical Context and Escalation Risks

Israel’s cautious diplomacy echoes its Cold War-era policies, where it balanced relationships with both the United States and the Soviet Union to maximize security and aid opportunities. Today, this historical pragmatism helps explain its reluctance to take a definitive side in conflicts that could disrupt its delicate regional equilibrium.

Moreover, direct confrontation with Russia, whether in Ukraine or Syria, carries significant risks. Any misstep could escalate into broader conflicts, drawing Israel into battles that would strain its military and economic resources.

Global Perception and Strategic Relationships

Israel’s approach also shapes its international image. As a state that often positions itself as a moral actor grounded in democratic values, its caution on Ukraine risks undermining this narrative, particularly among Western allies. Meanwhile, its actions in Syria highlight its unwavering commitment to protecting its borders and countering Iranian influence.

While navigating these conflicts, Israel faces another emerging challenge: the growing axis between Russia and China. As these powers strengthen ties, Israel’s alignment with the West could further complicate its already delicate balancing act.

The Broader Implications

Israel’s cautious stance on Ukraine and its calibrated actions in Syria highlight a broader theme in its foreign policy: the prioritization of immediate security concerns over broader geopolitical alignments. This approach, while pragmatic, poses risks. By not fully aligning with the West on Ukraine, Israel risks alienating key allies like the United States. Conversely, any misstep in Syria could provoke a dangerous escalation with Russia or Iran.

In a world of shifting alliances and emerging great-power competition, Israel’s balancing act exemplifies the complexities small states face when navigating global conflicts. While critics may question its moral clarity, Israel’s approach is a stark reminder that for nations like Israel, survival often dictates strategy over sentiment.