The October 7 massacre marked a defining moment for the State of Israel in many respects, particularly in the diplomatic sphere, as the conflict rapidly escalated into a war fought on seven fronts. Israel found itself not only facing an immediate security threat but also contending with the complexities of an increasingly antagonistic international order.
The war against the Jewish state has brought into sharp focus the limitations of multilateralism in addressing Israel’s unique security and diplomatic needs. Now more than ever, Israel must reevaluate its global diplomatic strategy and prioritize strengthening bilateral relations over-relying on multilateral platforms that have often failed to deliver.
The concept of multilateralism, by which the principles of international cooperation are enshrined in institutions such as the United Nations, allowing nations to cooperate under their auspices, has proven to be highly inefficient in aiding Israel, which faces existential threats in a deeply unstable region.
In theory, this system seems ideal: joint efforts that pool resources, advance international goals, and serve the common good. However, the ongoing conflict, which erupted after the October massacre, has laid bare the stark reality that multilateralism is susceptible to politicization, biases, and preferential treatment, which the only Jewish state has to face.
When Israel was attacked on multiple fronts by both state and non-state actors, it turned to international institutions to address its grievances. However, the response from multilateral bodies has been cold at best and viciously hostile at worst. The United Nations, for example, failed to take decisive action, issuing generic condemnations but failing to call out hostile actors, allowing them to gain ground diplomatically and politically.
Multilateral organizations and vulnerable Israel
Worse yet, some countries within these multilateral forums took advantage of Israel’s vulnerability to advance their own political agendas, often at the expense of Israel’s security interests.
The international community’s mixed responses highlighted a fundamental flaw: multilateral institutions are often hamstrung by political complexities and competing national interests and are rarely able to deliver concrete, timely solutions in moments of acute crisis.
Moreover, as Israel faced adversaries on multiple fronts, it became painfully clear that such institutions couldn’t shield the country from the immediate and overwhelming threats at hand. When Israel needed swift, coordinated action from the global community to isolate its enemies or support its defense efforts, it was instead met with baseless and hostile accusations.
What is a multilateral institution? A platform that allows states to work together and gives certain regulations for the manner in which such work happens. The United Nations are just that – the nations of the world.
Multilateralism is populated by states, which are searching for trade-offs and exhibit competing interests. A country friendly to Israel might need assistance to reach a particular office or committee or to advance a certain global policy.
To achieve this, it can easily ignore the Jewish state in favor of the 22 Arab states and 57 Islamic nations that form a majority in the Non-Aligned Movement, a voting bloc of 120 nations that has an automatic majority on any issue. Voting against Israel costs little, whereas voting with Israel results in international censure and real global blowback. In this scenario, the ideals of multilateralism inevitably take a backseat.
The failure of multilateralism during Israel’s current crisis calls for a strategic shift in Israel’s diplomatic approach. The State of Israel must prioritize bilateral relationships that can provide immediate, tailored cooperation and that transcend the inertia and antagonism often seen in multilateral forums.
Strengthening bilateral ties is not only crucial for direct diplomatic and security benefits but also plays a key role in shaping multilateral decision-making. By finding common ground with the nations of the world, Israel can counterbalance the bias often seen in multilateral institutions and advance its position while supporting its partners.
Unlike multilateral alliances, bilateral relations are more flexible and responsive. They are based on direct agreements between nations, allowing for more nuanced diplomacy that caters to the unique security and economic needs of the partners involved. In times of crisis, bilateral relationships can be leveraged to ensure rapid coordination on military support, intelligence sharing, economic sanctions, and diplomatic advocacy.
Israel’s existing bilateral relations with countries across the globe have proven to be powerful and mutually beneficial, allowing it to secure military assistance, expand trade partnerships, and garner political support that is not diluted by the complexities of multilateral negotiations.
By focusing more on cultivating these kinds of relationships, Israel can ensure that it has trusted allies on hand who are more likely to stand with it in times of need. This is why the Center for Jewish Impact, in partnership with the Israeli Permanent Mission to Geneva, is inviting Permanent Representatives of friendly countries like Hungary, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Kenya, and Cameroon to the International Organizations in Geneva, including the UN and its agencies, to Israel.
These ambassadors, having shown support and understanding in Israel’s toughest times, are now taking the opportunity to learn more about and understand the challenges Israel is facing.
By ensuring that representatives from these and other nations have the facts, knowledge, and experience of Israel’s challenges at hand, and by prioritizing strong, independent bilateral relationships, Israel can create a more flexible and responsive diplomatic environment – one where its allies are committed and capable of acting staunchly, positively, and swiftly when necessary.
However, this doesn’t mean a complete abandonment of multilateral ties.
While bilateral relations should be a priority, Israel should still seek opportunities in international organizations and professional agencies such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), World Food Program (WFP), UNICEF, and UNESCO, among others. Israel should also continue developing strong working relations with non-state organizations and businesses focused on subjects important to Israel and the region.
Nevertheless, Israel’s survival, security, and prosperity depend on a global network that is as robust as it is reliable. It’s time for Israel to shift its focus away from an overstretched multilateral system and double down on relationships that are not only strategic but personal, ensuring that no front is fought alone.
The writer is the chairman of the Center for Jewish Impact and a former CEO and executive vice president of the World Jewish Congress and World ORT.