Earlier this week, the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky reiterated complaints that Jerusalem has not provided his country with military assistance, and in particular that it has not shared its sophisticated missile-defense systems. Zelensky claimed, moreover, that Israel’s reluctance to send weapons resulted in Tehran providing Moscow with the drones it is now using to attack his country. On Wednesday, he changed his tune somewhat, thanking Israel for its recent sharing of vital intelligence. The editors of the Jerusalem Post take issue with the initial accusations:

Russia has been working with Iran for decades on defense technology, from missiles to air defense. Russia has even helped Iran to expand its nuclear-power program through expanding capacity at the Bushehr nuclear plant.

The main weapons Russia used against Ukraine since February, destroying villages and massacring civilians, have been Russian-made. Moscow’s decision to acquire thousands of Iranian drones is a new dangerous stage in the Moscow-Tehran partnership, but it is not because of Israel that Russia has relied on Iran and there is no evidence Israel could have prevented this partnership.

Israel has supported Ukraine since the war began; with humanitarian aid and also in international forums and through joining Western countries in condemning Russia’s invasion. It is true Israel has not sent air defenses to Ukraine. Western countries have also been slow to provide Ukraine with air defenses; many advanced systems, such as the Patriot system, have not been sent to Kyiv. [Furthermore], there is no evidence that Israel could have supplied Ukraine with [its] advanced systems, such as David’s Sling, Iron Dome, or Arrow; and it’s not clear even that these systems are appropriate for Kyiv.

Ukraine was careful in the past not to side too closely with Israel as it balanced its relations in the Middle East. Israel, too, was careful to balance its relations. Does Israel stand with Ukraine? Yes. Does that mean it needs to do everything Kyiv wants? No.

Since the war began, there has been a tension between Israel’s two primary goals: the destruction of Hamas and the liberation of the hostages. Many see in Israel’s renewed campaign in Gaza a sacrifice of the latter goal in pursuit of the former. But Meir Ben-Shabbat suggests that Israel’s attacks aim to bring Hamas back to the negotiating table:

The timing of the attack, its intensity, and the extent of casualties surprised Hamas. Its senior leaders are likely still wondering whether this is a limited action meant to shock and send a message or the beginning of a sustained operation. The statement by its senior officials linking the renewal of fighting to the fate of the hostages hints at the way it may act to stop Israel. This threat requires the Israeli political leadership to formulate a series of draconian measures and declare that they will be carried out if Hamas harms the hostages.

Ostensibly, Israel’s interest in receiving the hostages and continuing the fighting stands in complete contradiction to that of Hamas, but in practice Hamas has flexibility that has not yet been exhausted. This stems from the large number of hostages in its possession, which allows it to realize additional deals for some of them, and this is what Israel has been aiming its efforts toward.

We must concede that the challenge Israel faces is not simple, but the alternative Hamas presents—surrendering to its dictates and leaving it as the central power factor in Gaza—limits its options. . . . Tightening and significantly hardening the blockade along with increasing pressure through airstrikes, evacuating areas and capturing them, may force Hamas to make its stance more flexible.

But Ben-Shabbat also acknowledges the danger in this approach. The war’s renewal puts the hostages in greater danger. And as Israel makes threats, it will be obliged to carry them out.