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.

Examining the effects of Iran’s decision to launch nearly 200 ballistic missiles at Israel on October 1, Benny Morris takes stock of the Jewish state’s strategic situation:

The massive Iranian attack has turned what began as a local war in and around the Gaza Strip and then expanded into a Hamas–Hizballah–Houthi–Israeli war [into] a regional war with wide and possibly calamitous international repercussions.

Before the Iranians launched their attack, Washington warned Tehran to desist (“don’t,” in President Biden’s phrase), and Israel itself had reportedly cautioned the Iranians secretly that such an attack would trigger a devastating Israeli counterstrike. But a much-humiliated Iran went ahead, nonetheless.

For Israel, the way forward seems to lie in an expansion of the war—in the north or south or both—until the country attains some sort of victory, or a diplomatic settlement is reached. A “victory” would mean forcing Hizballah to cease fire in exchange, say, for a cessation of the IDF bombing campaign and withdrawal to the international border, or forcing Iran, after suffering real pain from IDF attacks, to cease its attacks and rein in its proxies: Hizballah, Hamas, and the Houthis.

At the same time, writes Morris, a victory along such lines would still have its limits:

An IDF withdrawal from southern Lebanon and a cessation of Israeli air-force bombing would result in Hizballah’s resurgence and its re-investment of southern Lebanon down to the border. Neither the Americans nor the French nor the UN nor the Lebanese army—many of whose troops are Shiites who support Hizballah—would fight them.