Ariel Kahana

Ariel Kahana is Israel Hayom's senior diplomatic and White House correspondent.

Zelenskyy has to make a historic decision

Prime Minister Naftali Bennett's unique position as the leader of a country that enjoys good relations with Russia and Ukraine justifies Jerusalem's near-neutral position on the Ukraine crisis.

 

Three days after Prime Minister Naftali Bennett's dramatic visit to the Kremlin on Shabbat, details about what took place there are starting to emerge. Is Israel mediating between Russia and Ukraine? No. Is Israel playing an important part in the international attempts to end the war? Yes, definitely.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

A tweet by Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelenskyy, as well as an official statement from the Kremlin, said Tuesday that the Russian and Ukrainian presidents had held two more conversations – separate, of course – with Prime Minister Bennett. Bennett's office did not report these phone calls, possibly because at this stage, Israel's role is less vital than what it was even a few days ago.

Because now, the two sides are the ones that need to make fateful decisions about their future. Israel cannot and should not do it for them. Paradoxically, Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin are in somewhat similar situations. Whoever decides to be flexible, make concessions, and end the war risks doing serious harm to his personal prestige, but will bring peace to his country.

On the other hand, a decision by either of them to keep fighting could tear their country to shreds. In that context, Zelenskyy is of course in the worse position. Putin is not hesitating to continue destroying Ukraine, and French President Emmanuel Macron's comment that "the worst is still ahead" is an accurate reflection of the state of events.

Zelenskyy entered a grand and justified war of independence, but his only chance of winning it is a scenario in which Putin's government falls apart. At the moment, there appears to be little chance of that happening, but there is no doubt that it is a possibility. The Russian president is encountering considerable opposition to the war, far beyond the norm in his autocratic country. He doesn't know how bad things could get, either.

Either way, Israel's contribution was to get answers to the question the entire world is asking – what is Putin thinking? Bennett went into the details of what matters to him and where he might turn, what the differences are and how he thinks they could be resolved, and how he sees the talks with Ukraine.

Bennett passed this on to German Chancellor Olaf Sholz, Macron, and of course, Zelenskyy, who in turn shared the information with other western leaders. This made it possible, for the first time since the war erupted, to lay out diplomatic channels that could bring an end to the war.

The international community appreciates Bennett's action, and it scored points for him personally as well as for Israel. British Ambassador to Israel Neil Wigan explained in a press briefing Tuesday that Israel was the only democracy that has good relations with the two countries, and Bennett was the first leader to spend three hours with Putin since the war began. Wigan called this a major achievement, and said it was the start of a process and did not think that anyone believed it would bring an end to the war within a day.

Wigan thinks that the question is whether Putin is open to a diplomatic solution. Officials in Israel believe that Zelenskyy is the one who should make a historic decision, because the Russian proposal he knows of allows him to stay in power, prevents his country from being razed, and doesn't entail much of a change.

And Israel's interests? The special status of messenger justifies Jerusalem's almost neutral stance on the crisis. Israel's heart is with the West, but ultimately, it sits in the East, and everyone understands that.

 Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

Related Posts

The real Iran

The Trump administration’s diplomatic engagement with regimes that support terrorism underscores a persistent misunderstanding within US foreign policy.