When the Numbers at the UN “Lie”: Why Ukraine’s Attitude Towards Israel Cannot Be Measured Only by “Votes”

Every vote somewhere in the UN involving Israel, in the very “Russian-speaking Israel” (and let’s be honest – mainly among the Z-“bots”) instantly turns into a debate with a calculator. Percentages, graphs, “here’s the proof” pop up in the feed, and it’s no longer a conversation but a fight with numbers. – the topic of the post was raised on Facebook – here’s the link to the original.

Ukraine in these tables almost always looks “inconvenient”: more often it abstains or votes against the Israeli position, and very rarely — “for.” For many, this becomes a quick “verdict”: it means the attitude towards Israel is bad.

The problem is that the UN is not a court of morality and not a test of friendship.

It is a political exchange where votes often work as currency, not as conviction. And if you measure Ukraine’s attitude towards Israel only by UN statistics, it results not in analysis, but in a methodological error.

Important context: similar “bad” percentages for Israel can easily be found in dozens of countries that trade with Israel, cooperate in technology, accept tourists, buy security systems, exchange delegations — and yet vote almost the same as Ukraine in New York.

So the number itself does not answer the main question: why this happens and what it really means.

Why UN votes do not equal sympathy or antipathy

The UN has long lived by the logic of blocs.

The European Union is a separate matrix. A large group of Global South countries has its own. The post-Soviet space pulls Soviet inertia “as accepted.” The Islamic bloc has a stable interest. And as a result, votes on Israel often become a ritual: positions are fixed in advance, and specific formulations only provide a reason to “mark.”

Hence the first honest conclusion: when Ukraine votes along the European line — it’s not always about Israel. It’s often about where Ukraine stands diplomatically and on whom its survival in the war depends.

And it sounds harsh, but that’s how politics works in wartime.

Ukraine cannot vote “in a vacuum”

Kyiv critically relies on support from the US and Europe — with weapons, finances, sanctions pressure, diplomacy. And the EU in UN votes on Israel often takes a position that is perceived in Israel as cold or one-sided.

Ukraine, remaining in this coalition, almost inevitably gets the same “voting pattern.” Not because Kyiv suddenly decided to “be against Israel,” but because it has a strict corridor of foreign policy.

In such a system, “vote against” sometimes means “we cannot afford to conflict with those who keep us afloat.” It’s unpleasant. But it’s reality.

Why many countries have “bad” numbers on Israel — and it’s not always about Israel

The UN on the Israeli topic looks like an overloaded mechanism that has been spinning the same plot for years.

It’s easy to gather a majority against Israel there: almost no need to pay a price, almost no need to explain details to voters, you can cover with general words about “peace” and “process.” And then the usual machine of resolutions and symbolic votes starts, which by themselves change little on the ground but create political noise.

And in this noise, Ukraine sounds like part of the general chorus. Not as a conductor.

Awkward moment: Israel also often votes not “as expected” in Kyiv

Israel is not the only one living by interests.

When the UN votes on resolutions condemning Russian aggression against Ukraine, Jerusalem sometimes chose caution: not to participate, soften formulations, avoid direct conflict. In Israel, this was explained by regional security and “the need for maneuver — primarily due to Russia’s presence in Syria.” There are other reasons — many know them and not everyone wants to “reveal” them.

In Ukraine, this was read differently: as moral ambiguity.

And this is another argument why the UN table does not show “attitude” — it shows who has what risks and dependencies.

Then how to correctly measure Ukraine’s attitude towards Israel

Not by numbers in New York.

It is worth looking at more “weighty” things where there is a price: the level of real contacts between states, positions on terror and security, public statements in times of crisis, work with the diaspora, humanitarian and medical projects, cooperation in technologies, how countries react to the death of civilians — in Kyiv and Jerusalem.

Where there is real responsibility, diplomacy is usually more honest than in the halls of the UN.

For Israelis of Ukrainian origin and for those who live in Israel and look at Ukraine not as an abstraction, something else is more important: both countries are fighting for the right to security, both face ideologies that justify the destruction of “others,” and both regularly see how international institutions lag behind reality.

Therefore, the question should be posed maturely: what Ukraine and Israel do for each other in the real world — and what political frameworks prevent this from sounding louder than another line in UN statistics. This is the meaningful corridor in which NAnews — News of Israel | Nikk.Agency operates.