The importance of Public Relationships
Lessons from Israel's big mistake voting against Ukraine's territorial integrity
On 24th February 2025, the UN General Assembly held a special session to address the conflict in Ukraine on the third anniversary of the Russian invasion. During this session, a resolution entitled “Advancing a Comprehensive, Just and Lasting Peace in Ukraine” drafted by Ukraine and the European Union was put to a vote.
This resolution ratified Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity and demanded the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of all Russian military forces from Ukraine within its internationally recognised borders. It passed with 93 votes in favour, 18 against and 65 abstentions.
However, Israel, along with the US, Russia, North Korea, Hungary and others voted against it. This was a significant shift, as Israel had historically supported Ukraine in similar UN resolutions, such as when in March 2022 it joined almost all countries in backing a resolution calling on Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine, or when in July 2024 it voted in favour of a resolution demanding Russian withdrawal from Zaporizhia.
Israel's decision seems influenced (if not directly mandated) by US policy under Trump, who has shown a shift in posture towards Ukraine, criticising Zelensky and seeking to improve relations with Russia. It is suggested (and very likely) that Israel aligned its position to maintain good relations with its key ally, especially considering US military and political support in the context of the conflict with Hamas and the ceasefire negotiations in Gaza.
In my humble opinion, Israel's vote against the resolution is a TERRIBLE mistake from two points of view: moral and strategic-diplomatic.
Moral perspective
Voting against a resolution that supports Ukraine's territorial integrity and condemns Russian aggression can be interpreted as a denial of a commitment to moral principles. Israel, which has historically defended its own territorial integrity and sought international support for its security from aggressors, appears to set a precedent that could undermine its own claims in the future.
If Israel does not defend the principle of territorial integrity in other contexts, it may be more difficult to argue for this principle in its conflict with the Palestinians, where it has been accused (this is not the time to go into the substance of this debate) of occupation and aggression.
Moreover, this decision reflects potential hypocrisy, as Israel has criticised other European governments for being lukewarm in their support due to self-interest. For example, some European countries have been accused of not strongly supporting sanctions against Russia for fear of economic impacts, and now Israel seems to fall into a similar practice, prioritising relations with the US over just principles and international law.
Diplomatic Perspective
But I would add that this vote could damage Israel's reputation as a defender of democracy, essential for gaining international support, especially in the Arab-Israeli conflict. By aligning itself with countries such as Russia and North Korea, which are seen as aggressors or facilitators of aggression, Israel risks losing the moral high ground it has used to justify its actions, such as military operations in Gaza or settlements in the West Bank.
PR is essential in diplomacy: it helps shape a country's narrative and public opinion, which in turn affects government decisions. For Israel, which faces constant scrutiny, maintaining a reputation as a nation that respects international law and human rights is vital. Voting against a resolution condemning aggression sends a mixed message and could erode confidence among allies and the international community, especially in forums such as the UN, where Israel often seeks support for its policies.
Policy Recommendations: Moral Reaffirmation
To ensure that Israel's foreign policy is aligned with its long-term interests and ethical values, I would humbly suggest the following proposals:
Reassess Foreign Policy Priorities: Israel should evaluate its foreign policy decisions not only in terms of immediate strategic interests, but also in light of long-term ethical and moral considerations.
Diplomatic Clarification: Israel should publicly clarify its position on the Ukraine resolution, explaining any nuances or specific reasons for its vote, while reaffirming its commitment to the principles of territorial integrity and the rule of law.
Moral Reaffirmation: Israel needs to reaffirm its commitment to moral principles in its foreign policy. This means consistently supporting just causes and opposing aggression, even when it is not directly beneficial in the short term.
Final note
The recent vote against the UN resolution on Ukraine is a reminder that short-term political goals have long-term impacts on a nation's reputation and its ability to advocate its own causes. For Israel, which relies heavily on its image as a wall of democracy in the Middle East, it is imperative to align its actions with its stated values. By doing so, Israel can not only maintain its moral standing, but also strengthen its position in international negotiations and disputes.
Nice article