Category: nanews

By the sum of mutual voting:

Ukraine → Israel: 15 points
Israel → Ukraine: 4 points

…

Difference: Ukraine gave Israel 11 points more than Israel gave Ukraine.

Eurovision 2026 in Vienna once again became not only a music contest but also a major political and cultural test for Europe, Israel, and Ukraine. Formally, songs, voices, performances, and artistry competed on stage. But behind the scoreboard, war, boycotts, public sympathies, jury caution, and that very audience voting, which often disrupts expert and bookmaker predictions, emerged again.

Israel once again took second place. Once again, the boycott did not work as its supporters had hoped. Once again, the audience was more generous than the professional juries, although in 2026 the gap between them was not as sharp as the year before.

Noam Bettan received 343 points: 123 from the jury and 220 from the audience. Ukraine with LELÉKA and the song Ridnym took ninth place, scoring 221 points. Bulgaria won with 516 points.

That is why the final is important not only as another entry in the history of the contest. For the Israeli audience, it is a story of how the country once again withstood pressure. For the Ukrainian audience, it is about how Ukraine’s voice remains heard but is already facing the fatigue of the international audience and the caution of the jury.

Israel again second: the jury became more generous, the audience remained the main support

The main figure for Israel is 343 points and second place. This is already a strong result in itself, especially against the backdrop of boycott campaigns, protests, and attempts to turn Israel’s participation into a political scandal.

But if you break down the result into parts, the picture becomes more interesting.

In 2026, Noam Bettan received 123 points from the jury. This is more than twice the result that Yuval Raphael received from professional commissions the year before: 123 versus 60.

At the same time, audience support, although still very high, was no longer as absolute as the previous year. Noam received 220 points from the public. The year before, the Israeli result was based on a significantly stronger audience wave.

In 2026, Israel received points from the jury of 22 out of 34 countries. For comparison: the previous year, Israel received points from the judges of 14 out of 39 countries. So the jury did not become completely friendly but stopped looking like an almost closed wall.

Jury voting for Israel — 123 points

Professional juries distributed points to Israel as follows:

Poland — 12

Ukraine — 10

Moldova — 10

Albania — 8

Austria — 8

Lithuania — 8

Armenia — 7

Bulgaria — 7

Denmark — 7

Georgia — 6

Romania — 6

Croatia — 5

Azerbaijan — 4

France — 4

Malta — 4

San Marino — 4

Serbia — 4

Germany — 3

Czech Republic — 2

Switzerland — 2

Belgium — 1

Norway — 1

Who did not give Israel points from the jury: Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Portugal, Greece, Australia, United Kingdom, Finland, Sweden, Cyprus, Italy, and ‘the rest of the world’, meaning votes cast by countries not participating in the contest.

Particularly notable here are Ukraine and Moldova. Ukraine gave Israel 10 points, although the year before it gave only 2. Moldova gave Israel nothing the previous year but now gave 10.

Israel received only one highest score — 12 points from Poland. The previous year, the only 12 points from the jury to Israel came from Azerbaijan. Then no one gave 10 points, and France and Ireland gave 7 points each.

Audience voting for Israel — 220 points

Audience voting once again became Israel’s main resource. Noam Bettan received 220 points from the public.

France — 12

Azerbaijan — 12

Germany — 12

Switzerland — 12

Portugal — 12

Finland — 12

Albania — 10

Georgia — 10

United Kingdom — 10

Moldova — 8

Belgium — 8

Italy — 8

Cyprus — 8

Austria — 7

Armenia — 7

Malta — 7

Sweden — 7

Romania — 6

Rest of the world — 6

Ukraine — 5

Bulgaria — 5

Norway — 5

Greece — 5

Czech Republic — 5

Serbia — 4

Montenegro — 4

Latvia — 4

San Marino — 3

Poland — 2

Denmark — 2

Luxembourg — 1

Estonia — 1

Who did not give Israel points from the audience: Australia, Lithuania, and Croatia.

In the audience voting, Israel received 12 points from six countries. This is exactly half as many as the year before. But even such ‘reduced’ support turned out to be huge against the backdrop of pressure, boycott calls, and attempts to portray Israel as a country that the European public is supposedly ready to completely reject.

For the second year in a row, the maximum to Israel was given by Germany, Azerbaijan, France, Switzerland, and Portugal. The previous year, the countries that gave Israel 12 points also included Spain and the Netherlands, but in 2026 they boycotted the contest.

Australia as the strangest episode

Australia stands out separately. The previous year, Australian viewers gave Israel the highest score — 12 points. In 2026, Australia was the only country that did not give Israel a single point from either the jury or the audience.

At the same time, Israel voted very generously for Australia: the Israeli jury gave Australia 12 points, and Israeli viewers gave 10.

This asymmetry is particularly noticeable. The Australian jury’s voting can still be explained by the general atmosphere in the country and strong pro-Palestinian sentiments in the public sphere. But zero from the audience after last year’s 12 points looks not just like a change in musical preferences but a sharp public turnaround.

For Israel, this is an important signal: even where there was strong audience support yesterday, the situation can change quickly.

Ukraine and Israel: how they voted for each other

A separate line of the final is the mutual voting of Ukraine and Israel. It is here that the dry scoreboard becomes particularly sensitive because behind it are not only music and stage performance but also relations between societies, memory, war, diaspora, and the expectation of mutual support.

Ukraine gave Israel significant points.

The professional jury of Ukraine gave Noam Bettan 10 points. This is one of the highest scores Israel received from national juries in the final. Only Poland was higher with 12 points.

Ukrainian viewers also supported Israel, but more restrainedly — 5 points. For a final where there was a campaign of pressure and boycott around Israel’s participation, this is still an important signal: the Ukrainian audience did not nullify Israel and did not follow the logic of complete rejection.

On the Israeli side, the picture was different.

Israeli viewers gave Ukraine 4 points. This means that the Ukrainian entry LELÉKA with the song Ridnym was noticed and received support from part of the Israeli public but did not enter the main favorites of the Israeli televoting.

However, the Israeli jury did not give Ukraine any points. The previous year, the Israeli jury gave Ukraine 4 points, and in 2026 — zero.

Against the backdrop of the Ukrainian jury giving Israel 10 points, this moment is particularly noticeable.

Ukraine supported Israel more strongly than Israel supported Ukraine

If you look only at the numbers, an unpleasant but important asymmetry arises: Ukraine supported Israel more strongly than Israel supported Ukraine.

Ukraine to Israel – 15 points:

jury — 10 points;

audience — 5 points.

Israel to Ukraine – 4 points:

jury — 0 points;

audience — 4 points.

For the Ukrainian community in Israel, for repatriates from Ukraine, for Ukrainians who permanently reside in Israel, and for those who found themselves in the country after Russia’s invasion in 2022, such a difference may be perceived painfully. On a human level, Ukraine and Israel often seem closer than what the professional voting table showed.

But “Eurovision” is arranged in such a way that public sympathy, political context, and jury decisions do not always coincide. Sometimes viewers vote with their hearts, while the jury votes based on their own professional, taste, or cautious criteria. As a result, a gap arises, which is then discussed not as a musical detail, but as a symbol of attitude.

NANews — Israel News | Nikk.Agency considers the final not as an easy musical chronicle, but as a mirror of how Israel, Ukraine, and Europe simultaneously vote with music, memory, fear, habit, and political background. When the Ukrainian jury gives Israel 10 points, and the Israeli jury gives Ukraine nothing, it is not necessarily a diplomatic signal. But it is definitely a reason to closely watch how cultural ties manifest in public tables.

Ukraine in the final: ninth place and 221 points

In 2026, Ukraine performed with the song Ridnym. LELÉKA brought a number to the stage with a bandura, ethnic motifs, the theme of home, and the internal pain of a country that continues to live under the blows of Russia.

Ukraine took ninth place, scoring 221 points.

Of them:

167 points — from viewers;

54 points — from the jury.

It was the viewer support that became the basis of the Ukrainian result. Professional juries were significantly more restrained, and this caused discussion among the Ukrainian audience.

The highest score from the professional jury Ukraine received was from Switzerland — 12 points.

Ukraine was also supported by:

United Kingdom — 7 points;

France — 6 points;

Italy — 7 points;

Azerbaijan — 10 points;

Latvia — 7 points;

Portugal — 3 points;

Romania — 1 point;

Poland — 1 point.

At the same time, 24 countries did not give Ukraine a single point from the national jury. Among them are Sweden, Germany, Georgia, Australia, Israel, Austria, Greece, Belgium, Finland, Bulgaria, and others.

For Ukraine, this is not a failure. Ninth place at “Eurovision” is a strong result. But against the backdrop of the military context, emotional performance, and audience expectations, it is perceived more complexly: viewers supported Ukraine much more strongly than professional commissions.

Why the Ukrainian result is important for Israel

For the Israeli audience, the Ukrainian result is not just a neighboring line in the table. Ukraine and Israel in recent years have increasingly found themselves in a similar situation on international cultural platforms: their participants are evaluated not only as artists but also as representatives of countries around which there is war, diplomatic dispute, and informational struggle.

Ukraine lives under the blows of Russia. Israel, after October 7 and the war in Gaza, faces attempts at cultural pressure and exclusion.

These situations are different in nature, but on the “Eurovision” stage, both countries find themselves inside one mechanism: the viewer hears the song, but at the same time sees the flag, news, pain, political background, and their own ideas of justice.

In 2026, Ukraine showed that its cultural voice remains audible. But it also faced the fact that emotional strength alone is no longer enough for automatic entry into the top three. In the fourth year of Russia’s great war against Ukraine, the international audience still reacts, but not as it did in the first months of the invasion.

For Israel, there is also a lesson in this. Viewer support can be huge, but it is not eternal and not guaranteed. It needs to be maintained not only with symbols but also with the quality of performance, a clear story, a strong stage, and an accurate hit in the mood of the audience.

What the whole table showed: boycott, viewers, jury, and the Israeli series of recent years

Bulgaria’s victory became a separate story of the final. The representative of Bulgaria received 516 points and took first place. Against this result, Israel with 343 points was second, and Ukraine with 221 points was ninth.

But in a political sense, the main question was not only the first place.

The main question sounded differently: did the boycott manage to break Israel’s participation?

The answer of the table is no.

Israel not only remained in the competition. It again found itself in second place. Moreover, the country received strong viewer support even from countries where the anti-Israel agenda sounds loud and aggressive.

Traditionally high was the voting for Israel in countries that are often considered pro-Palestinian in public atmosphere. That is why it would be especially interesting to see how the Netherlands, Ireland, and Spain would have voted if they had participated in the competition. Last year the reaction there was stormy, and in 2026 these countries boycotted the competition.

United Kingdom and a new wave of irritation

A separate intrigue is the United Kingdom. Its performer received only 1 point and took last place. After such a result, accusations of a political conspiracy and attempts to explain the failure through external forces have already appeared in local discussions.

It will not be surprising if next year in the United Kingdom voices for boycotting Israel increase. For part of the European public, it is often easier to explain their own failure with politics than with a weak song, unsuccessful staging, or lack of contact with the viewer.

But this is exactly what makes “Eurovision” so indicative. There simultaneously exist music, show, national complexes, political campaigns, diasporas, grievances, and real viewer sympathies.

How Israel voted

Israel also distributed its points in a revealing way.

Israel jury voting:

12 points — Australia;

10 — Denmark;

8 — Bulgaria;

7 — Finland;

6 — Moldova;

5 — Greece;

4 — Romania;

3 — Italy;

2 — Belgium;

1 — Albania.

Israel viewer voting:

12 points — Bulgaria;

10 — Australia;

8 — Moldova;

7 — Italy;

6 — Denmark;

5 — Greece;

4 — Ukraine;

3 — Romania;

2 — France;

1 — Albania.

Here Ukraine stands out again. Last year Israeli viewers gave Ukraine 12 points, and in 2026 — only 4. The Israeli jury last year gave Ukraine 4 points, and now gave none.

This means the decline in support for Ukraine from Israel occurred on two lines: among viewers and the jury.

This does not mean a lack of sympathy between societies. But it shows that in the competition, sympathy does not always turn into a high score, especially when there are many strong numbers on stage, and each audience has its own emotional favorites.

Israeli series: 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026

The result of Noam Bettan continued the strong Israeli series of recent years.

In 2023, Noa Kirel took third place with the song Unicorn, scoring 362 points. Of them, 185 points came from viewers and 177 from the jury.

In 2024, Eden Golan took fifth place with the song Hurricane, scoring 375 points. Of them, 323 points were given by viewers and 52 by judges.

In 2025, Yuval Raphael took second place. Then the Israeli result largely relied on huge viewer support, and the jury was noticeably colder.

In 2026, Noam Bettan again took second place. But now the jury gave Israel 123 points, and viewers — 220.

This no longer looks like a coincidence. Israel has remained at the top of the table for several years in a row, despite political pressure, boycott campaigns, and attempts to turn the competition into a platform for cultural exclusion.

Historical context: Israel’s victories and second places

Israel has four victories at “Eurovision”:

1978 — Izhar Cohen and Alphabeta;

1979 — Gali Atari and the group “Milk and Honey”;

1998 — Dana International;

2018 — Netta Barzilai.

Israel also had second places:

1982 — Avi Toledano;

1983 — Ofra Haza;

2025 — Yuval Raphael;

2026 — Noam Bettan.

In this historical line, the result of 2026 is especially noticeable. Israel not only returned to high positions. It maintains them during a period when its participation every year becomes the subject of international disputes.

Why the 2026 final is important not only for contest fans

“Eurovision-2026” showed that Europe votes more complexly than it speaks. At the slogan level, one can demand a boycott of Israel, but the viewer table shows a different reality. One can talk about fatigue from Ukraine, but the Ukrainian song still receives 167 points from the public and remains in the top 10.

The jury and viewers diverged again.

Viewers voted more emotionally. The jury — more cautiously. Israel again received more from the public than from professionals. Ukraine also received much more from viewers than from the jury.

In this sense, Israel and Ukraine found themselves in a similar situation: both countries bring to the stage not only a song but also a large political background that cannot be turned off with the push of a button.

The final in Vienna became a mirror of Europe. It simultaneously reflected music, boycott, war, memory, irritation, sympathy, fear, fatigue, and the power of viewer voting.

Israel saw that it cannot simply be erased from the cultural map. Ukraine saw that its voice remains important, but the struggle for the world’s attention is becoming more difficult.

And for both countries, this is not a final point, but a new stage where music again turned out to be much more than just a song.

Israel and Ukraine: who received how much from the jury and viewers

This table summarizes the data for Israel and Ukraine: separately jury points, separately viewer points, and the total for each country. For Israel, there is a complete breakdown. For Ukraine, in the open text breakdown of viewer votes, 152 points out of the official 167 were found, so the missing 15 points are separately noted below.

Country	Jury to Israel	Viewers to Israel	Total to Israel	Jury to Ukraine	Viewers to Ukraine	Total Ukraine
Australia			0			0
Austria	8	7	15		4	4
Azerbaijan	4	12	16	10	4	14
Albania	8	10	18		7	7
Armenia	7	7	14			0
Belgium	1	8	9		5	5
Bulgaria	7	5	12		7	7
United Kingdom		10	10	7		7
Germany	3	12	15			0
Greece		5	5			0
Georgia	6	10	16		12	12
Denmark	7	2	9		7	7
Israel	—	—	—		4	4
Italy		8	8	7	6	13
Cyprus		8	8		4	4
Latvia		4	4	7	5	12
Lithuania	8		8		7	7
Luxembourg		1	1		4	4
Malta	4	7	11			0
Moldova	10	8	18		10	10
Norway	1	5	6			0
Poland	12	2	14	1	12	13
Portugal		12	12	3	10	13
Romania	6	6	12	1	4	5
San Marino	4	3	7			0
Serbia	4	4	8			0
Ukraine	10	5	15	—	—	—
Finland		12	12		4	4
France	4	12	16	6	6	12
Croatia	5		5			0
Montenegro		4	4		5	5
Czech Republic	2	5	7		12	12
Switzerland	2	12	14	12		12
Sweden		7	7		5	5
Estonia		1	1		8	8
Rest of the world		6	6			0

Results for Israel

Israel received 343 points: 123 points from the jury and 220 points from the audience.

• Moldova — 18 points to Israel
• Albania — 18 points to Israel
• Georgia — 16 points to Israel
• Azerbaijan — 16 points to Israel
• France — 16 points to Israel
• Ukraine — 15 points to Israel
• Austria — 15 points to Israel
• Germany — 15 points to Israel

Results for Ukraine

Ukraine received 221 points: 54 points from the jury and 167 points from the audience.

In the found text breakdown of the audience voting for Ukraine, 152 points out of 167 are detailed. The missing 15 points in the open list were not distributed by country, so they are not added to individual countries in the table above.

• Azerbaijan — 14 points to Ukraine
• Italy — 13 points to Ukraine
• Poland — 13 points to Ukraine
• Portugal — 13 points to Ukraine
• Georgia — 12 points to Ukraine
• Latvia — 12 points to Ukraine
• France — 12 points to Ukraine
• Czech Republic — 12 points to Ukraine
• Switzerland — 12 points to Ukraine

Ukraine and Israel: mutual voting

Voting direction	Jury	Audience	Total
Ukraine gave to Israel	10	5	15
Israel gave to Ukraine		4	4

Result: Ukraine gave Israel 15 points, and Israel gave Ukraine 4 points. The difference was 11 points in favor of Israel.

Many prominent political leaders Israel, including 2 presidents and 3 prime ministers, come from UkraineOne of such famous natives is Moshe Sharett.

In 2018, a memorial plaque to the first head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel and the second prime minister of the country, Moshe Sharet, appeared at the oldest gymnasium in Kherson – gymnasium No. 20, formerly the first Kherson men’s gymnasium, where he studied.

During the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it was fired upon by Russian troops several times. On May 11, 2023, the shelling of the high school burned down.

After the publication of the material, reader M., who managed to leave Kherson, which was occupied by Rashists, to Israel, said that he studied at this school and was present at the opening of the memorial plaque to Moshe Sharet on the facade of the school.

“After leaving Kherson, the Russian Nazis destroyed the school, which survived the occupation in the First and Second World Wars. Currently, there is no school, only ruins, no boards,” he wrote and sent a photo.

According to him, “On the left, next to the flag of Ukraine, you can see an unpainted place where Sharet’s board was. Now the board is being preserved in the Jewish community of Kherson.”

He was born in 1894 in the city of Kherson and was named Moisei Yakovlevich Chertok at birth. His father had left the Russian Empire, fleeing a wave of pogroms, and settled in Palestine: first in Jaffa, then in Jerusalem.

A few years later he returned and settled in Odessa, where he soon married Fanya Lev. The couple subsequently moved to Kherson, where they had three daughters and two sons, including Moshe.

From childhood he grew up inquisitive and active, distinguished by his interest in learning. Moshe attended cheder, and then graduated from the boys’ gymnasium in Kherson.

His love for linguistics bore fruit: the guy spoke eight languages, including Hebrew. His knowledge gave him a lot to translate, which he practiced, in particular translating into Hebrew.

In 1906, the Chertok family was forced to leave their home again: as a result of the growing threat of pogroms in the then Russian Empire, they decided to leave for the Ottoman Empire, and later for Palestine. By that time, Moshe was 12 years old, and he was forced to actively help his parents with their daily life and the formation of the family. In 1908, they settled in Jaffa, one of the areas from which Tel Aviv was once built.

After successfully completing the Jewish gymnasium, Moshe entered the University of Istanbul, where he began to actively study law. At the outbreak of World War I, he fought as a volunteer in the Ottoman Empire. In 1919, Moshe began working in the secretariat of the Zionist Commission. In the early 1920s, he studied at the London School of Economics. His role in the formation of the state of Israel is special.

His path began with the position of deputy editor-in-chief of the daily newspaper of the General Federation of Workers, Histradut, and experience as editor of the English weekly Davar.

Moshe Chertok was one of the authors of the Declaration of Independence of Israel, signed on May 14, 1948. It was then that he became the first Minister of Foreign Affairs in the country’s history and changed his last name to Sharett, which means “an employee fulfills a duty.” As a minister, Moshe Sharett headed the Israeli delegation at the ceasefire negotiations during the War of Independence and managed to establish diplomatic relations with dozens of countries around the world.

After leaving government service, he ran the Am Oved publishing house and Beit Berl College.

In addition, he was the head of the World Zionist Organization, to which he was elected in 1960. Despite his struggle with a serious illness, Sharett led an active public life and until his death spoke to the public, talking about his views on the construction of the state of Israel.

Moshe Sharett died on July 7, 1965, at the age of 70. He was buried in the Trumpeldor Jewish cemetery next to his wife Tzipora. Today in Ukraine, in Moshe Sharett’s native Kherson, a memorial plaque in his honor was installed on the oldest gymnasium in the city.

Leave a comment↓

Read us in channels Israel News Nikk.Agency News from Israel V – Telegram— Facebook, — Google News

Why not? Heading “Jews from Ukraine” on the website NAnews is dedicated to the unique history and achievements of Ukrainian Jews, their contribution to the development of Israel and Jewish communities around the world, strengthening cultural and historical ties between peoples.

This article is just research for now 🙂 by an enthusiast……

History often brings amazing surprises. This time she shed light on family Jared Kushner’s roots, son-in-law of US President Donald Trump.

As it turned out, his maternal great-grandfather born in Ukraine, or rather, in a small town PodgaitsyTernopil region. Here it is on the map.

About this “Suspilny” told historian, local historian and teacher, former mayor of the village of Podgaitsy Stepan Kolodnitsky.

Stepan Kolodnitsky is the compiler of the publication “Podgaitsy and Podgaechchyna”, in which he collected all the historical information about the region and a tourist guide “The paths of the shtetls. Travels to the Forgotten Continent”which contains information about ancient Jewish cities.

Enthusiast Stepan Kolodnitsky, who devoted his life to researching his region, found documentary evidence that sheds light on Kushner’s pedigree.

As the historian said, surviving documents indicate that the Stadtmauer family, from which Jared Kushner’s great-grandfather on his mother’s side comes, lived in Podgaitsy for a long time.

“At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Jewish population in Podgaitsy was 53 percent. Over time, the majority emigrated to Israel, the USA and other countries. Among them are the ancestors of Jared Kushner,” said Stepan Kolodnitsky.

The Stadtmauer family: the path from Podgaitsy to America

The Stadtmauer family immigrated to the United States at the beginning of the 20th century to escape poverty. Like many other Jews from Ukraine, they were looking for a better life overseas.

Jared Kushner, a member of New York’s “Modern Orthodox” Jewish community, was raised in the traditions passed down by his ancestors. Kushner does not hide his pride in his origins.

---

Jewish heritage of Podgaitsy

By the way, I was born in Podgaitsy Mendel Zacharias – son of Rabbi Aryeh Leib (died 1791), author of the books “Menorot Zechariah” (“The Lamp of Zechariah”), “Zechariah Meshulem” (“Allegories of Zechariah”), “Zechariah Yamevin” (“Zechariah the Expert”).

Podgaitsy is a small but history-rich city.

Jews began to settle in Podgaitsy at the beginning of the 16th century, and the first documentary mentions date back to 1552, when Jews were recorded as taxpayers. Already at that time, the community differed in size compared to other neighboring cities. From 1580 to 1620, Rabbi Aron Benjamin Solnik, author of the famous book “The Speeches of Benjamin,” lived and served in Podgaitsy, which made the city an important religious and cultural center.

By the beginning of the 20th century, the Jewish community made up about half of the city’s population: out of 6,000 residents, 3,200 were Jews. They were engaged in trade and crafts, and actively participated in cultural and economic life. However, the First World War and subsequent events were the first blows for the community. Despite this, in the 1910s, a local printing house owned by the Jewish Weinles family published books and materials for Ukrainian organizations.

Tragedy struck the community during World War II. In 1941, with the arrival of German troops, attacks, forced labor and fines for Jews began. On Yom Kippur in 1942, about 1,000 Jews were sent to the Belzec extermination camp, and in 1943 the community was finally exterminated: the remaining residents were shot and buried in mass graves on the outskirts of the city. The last Rabbi of Podgaytsev, Yitzchak-Aizik Aichenstein, died along with the community.

Today the Jewish cemetery in Podgaitsy is a unique historical monument. About 1,500 matzes have been preserved here, some of which date back to the 17th century. It is one of the largest Jewish cemeteries in Ukraine, reminiscent of the past greatness and tragedy of the city’s Jewish community. Interestingly, the city’s coat of arms, decorated with a gold letter “P”, resembles the Hebrew letter “ח” (chaim – life), which symbolically connects the city with its Jewish history.

This thriving shtetl was known for its cultural diversity and active Jewish life. However, the events of World War II and subsequent repressions significantly changed the face of the city.

About 1.5 thousand matzes have been preserved in the old Jewish cemetery in Podgaitsy, and the oldest tombstones date back to the 17th century. During a survey of the cemetery in 2011, scientists discovered a matzeva from 1596, one of the oldest in the region.

When asked whether there is Stadtmauer’s grave in the Jewish cemetery in Podgaitsy, the historian replied: “There is no grave itself, because you see what the Bolsheviks, the Germans, and other people destroyed.”

 

 

Interesting twist in history

It would seem that the connection between Donald Trump, his son-in-law Kushner and Ukraine sounds like an unexpected twist. However, the story of the Kushner family is another example of how Ukraine and Israel are connected by a common Jewish destiny.

“Europe is over,” said the Jews who left at the beginning of the last century. But the legacy of their families lives on in their descendants who reach heights on the other side of the world.

---

A look into modern times

Ukrainian Jews left a deep mark on the history of Israel and Jewish communities around the world. As the example of the Kushner family shows, such connections not only remain, but also remind us of the importance of culture and historical heritage.

Our website NAnews – Israel News continues to highlight unique moments in the history of Jewish communities, their interaction with Ukraine and contributions to the modern world.

---

Quote from a historian:

“Pidgaytsy is a unique place where the histories of peoples are intertwined. By studying its past, we open new pages of world history.”

Read more in the section “Jews from Ukraine” website NAnews – Israel News.

…

Read on WhatsApp – channel NAnews ↓ — Israel News

Read on Telegram – channel NAnews ↓ — Israel News

 

On May 30, 2026, an event will take place in Tel Aviv that for the Ukrainian community in Israel sounds not just like another cultural meeting. “Travnevi Skhodyny” is a day where you can see your people again, talk without haste, bring children, buy Ukrainian books, drink coffee, take spring photos, and feel that Ukrainian culture continues to live nearby — even far from home.

In Ukrainian, the name of the event sounds like “Travnevi Skhodyny”. Literally, it can be translated as “May Gatherings” or “May Assembly”, but in essence, it is not an official meeting, but a warm gathering of people who come together for communication, culture, creativity, and a sense of their circle. Therefore, in other languages, this name is most closely translated as “May Meeting”, “May Get-Together”, or “May Community Gathering” — depending on whether you need to emphasize coziness, cultural format, or the community nature of the event.

The organizer of the event is “Ukrainian Zdybanky in Israel“.

The meeting will take place at the Ukrainian Cultural Center in Tel Aviv at the address: Yirmeyahu St 22, Tel Aviv-Yafo.

Date — Saturday, May 30, 2026.

Start — 11:00.

A Ukrainian meeting that many have already missed

In the invitation, the organizers directly ask: missed “Zdybanky”?

And it seems the answer for many will be obvious. Such meetings in Israel have become not only a place for communication but also a small island of Ukrainian atmosphere — with language, books, children’s workshops, traditions, humor, familiar faces, and new people.

“Travnevi Skhodyny” is conceived as a warm spring day for adults and children. Without heavy formality, without long speeches, without the feeling of an event “for the sake of it.” Rather — as a lively meeting of people who find it important to maintain a connection with Ukraine through culture, crafts, books, and simple human presence nearby.

Four main components of the event

The program includes four main highlights worth coming for.

🎨 For the first time in Israel — Samchykivsky painting workshop

For children 7+, there will be a workshop on Samchykivsky painting — a bright Ukrainian decorative technique originating from the Khmelnytsky region.

This is not just painting “for fun.” Samchykivsky painting is part of the Ukrainian visual tradition: rich colors, plant ornaments, recognizable energy of folk art, and a sense of home that is often hard to explain in words.

At the workshop, children will learn about the history of the painting, discover the basic elements of the technique, and create their own work. They can take it with them — as a small fragment of Ukrainian spring, made with their own hands in Tel Aviv.

Time: 11:00.

Age: 7+.

Pre-registration required:

https://forms.gle/Tm3vUAgyqvJkWbC56

🧵 Premiere of the “Prypynda!” workshop

The second important part of the program is the premiere of a new workshop from “Zdybanky” called “Prypynda!”.

Prypynda is a traditional Ukrainian accessory-decoration that used to complement women’s attire, and today it can return in a modern sound. This is exactly the case when authenticity does not look museum-like. It can be combined with both an embroidered shirt and jeans, and with an urban style.

At the workshop, participants will learn the history of prypynda and create their own decoration. The format is designed for 16+, so it may be especially interesting for teenagers, youth, and adults who love handcrafts, Ukrainian details in their image, and things with personal meaning.

Time: 14:00.

Age: 16+.

Pre-registration required:

https://forms.gle/Tm3vUAgyqvJkWbC56

📚 Big book fair

Throughout the event, there will be a big book fair.

And this is a separate reason to come even for those who do not plan to participate in the workshops. Ukrainian books in Israel are not the most obvious and not the easiest thing. They need to be searched for, brought, passed on, ordered, waited for. Therefore, a book fair in such a format is not just a trading point, but an opportunity to choose reading for yourself, for children, for the family, and at the same time support the Ukrainian cultural space.

Entrance to the book fair is free.

No registration is needed to visit the fair.

🌸 Photo zone and the atmosphere of Ukrainian spring

Organizers promise a photo zone, tea, coffee, conversations, and that very atmosphere that many have missed.

Here, not only the program is important. The gesture of the meeting itself is important. When repatriates from Ukraine, Ukrainians who permanently reside in Israel, families who arrived earlier, and those who found themselves in Israel after Russia’s invasion in 2022 can be in one space — without the need to explain why a Ukrainian book, ornament, song, accessory, or children’s workshop matters.

NANews — Israel News | Nikk.Agency notes: such events often become a way for the community to maintain not only culture but also a sense of normalcy. When there are many disturbing news around, a simple meeting with books, children, coffee, and creativity sometimes turns out to be more important than loud statements.

Who should come

“Travnevi Skhodyny” is suitable for families with children, adult members of the Ukrainian community, those who want to meet new people, buy Ukrainian books, or just spend a few hours in a warm atmosphere.

You can come to the workshop.

You can come only to the book fair.

You can drop by for the photo zone, coffee, and communication.

And perhaps this is what makes the event alive: it has no single mandatory scenario. Everyone can find their reason to be there.

Brief information

Event: “Travnevi Skhodyny”

Organizer: Ukrainian Zdybanky in Israel

Place: Ukrainian Cultural Center in Tel Aviv

Address: Yirmeyahu 22, Tel Aviv

Date: Saturday, May 30

Start: 11:00

Program: Samchykivsky painting workshop, “Prypynda!” workshop, book fair, photo zone, tea, coffee, and communication

Details and how to participate – on the event page: https://www.facebook.com/events/1523815505782631

Entrance to the book fair is free.

In the event announcements, different end times are mentioned — 15:30 and 16:30. It’s better to check the current schedule with the organizers before attending, especially if planning to participate in the workshops.

“Be in trend with Zdybanky“, the organizers write.

Or to put it simply: come to create, meet, hug, and once again feel a bit of Ukrainian spring in Israel.

A dangerous narrative has resurfaced in American politics: the debate over war, Israel, Iran, and Donald Trump is shifting away from facts, decisions, and accountability, and towards old anti-Semitic myths of ‘secret control’ and ‘Jewish influence.’ At the center of this story is Tucker Carlson — one of the most prominent voices of the American right, who in an interview with The New York Times essentially portrayed Trump not as an independent president, but as a man under the power of Benjamin Netanyahu.

Carlson’s formulations were not just harsh. They were constructed to evoke a familiar picture for the audience: a strong, yet seemingly unfree American leader, behind whom a foreign politician and his supporters in the U.S. operate. This is where political criticism begins to transition into another genre — conspiracy theory, where Israel is no longer an ally, a contentious partner, or a subject of tough discussion, but supposedly a hidden force controlling Washington.

For the Israeli audience, this conversation is important not only because of Netanyahu’s name. It shows how quickly criticism of a specific Israeli government can be replaced by the old language of suspicion towards Jews in general.

When the debate over war turns into a myth of ‘control’

Tucker Carlson stated that during the decision-making process on striking Iran, Trump appeared more like a ‘hostage’ than a sovereign leader. He then clarified that, in his opinion, the president was held hostage by Benjamin Netanyahu and his numerous supporters in the U.S. This was followed by an even harsher phrase: ‘This is slavery. This is complete control of one person over another.’

Such words are not chosen by accident.

One can argue about who exactly pushed the U.S. towards a hard line against Iran. One can discuss Israel’s interests, the position of the American administration, the pressure of allies, the role of intelligence data, the fear of Tehran’s nuclear program, and Trump’s own political calculations. All of this is normal political discourse.

But when instead of analysis, the image of an ‘enslaved’ president allegedly controlled by the Israeli prime minister appears, it is no longer about politics. This is the language that has been used against Jews for centuries: hidden influence, foreign power, secret networks, control over states.

Netanyahu can be criticized — but not turned into a demonic figure

There are reasons to criticize Benjamin Netanyahu. In Israel, they know this well without Tucker Carlson’s hints.

He is accused of political responsibility for failures before October 7, delaying decisions on Gaza, conflict with democratic institutions, dependence on far-right partners, a hard line on Iran, and the fact that Israeli politics in recent years increasingly looks like a series of crises without a clear strategy.

But it’s one thing to analyze the actions of the prime minister, his cabinet, mistakes, interests, and consequences.

It’s quite another to portray him as a ‘Jewish Rasputin’ supposedly controlling the U.S. president. Such a presentation does not help to understand the war, Iran, Gaza, or the U.S.-Israel alliance. It only brings old and very dangerous clichés to the surface.

Iran, Israel, and the American divide: why the topic has become toxic

The issue of Iran has long been one of the central themes for Netanyahu. For decades, he has said that Israel must not allow Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons, even if it requires force. This is not a secret position, not a backstage conspiracy, and not a sudden intrigue. This is the public line of the Israeli prime minister, around which debates have long been ongoing within Israel, in the U.S., and on the international stage.

Therefore, the version that Netanyahu tried to persuade Trump to act more harshly does not in itself seem fantastic. Political leaders persuade allies, exert pressure, negotiate, use arguments and threats. This is how foreign policy works.

The problem begins where Trump is completely deprived of agency.

Carlson effectively removes the American president’s responsibility for his own decision. If the strike on Iran causes dissatisfaction among part of the American public, it is more convenient to say that Trump was ‘forced.’ Then the blame lies not with the U.S. leader himself, not with his administration, not with the American decision-making system, but with an external player — Israel and ‘its supporters.’

For Trump’s supporters, this is psychologically convenient. For anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists — almost ideal.

Why Israel again becomes a convenient explanation for others’ mistakes

The U.S. has its own interests in the Middle East. American politics has its own history of conflict with Iran. Trump has a personal manner of making decisions, demonstrating strength, and simultaneously shifting responsibility when the consequences become inconvenient.

But Carlson shifts the center of gravity to Israel.

This is what is dangerous. In such logic, Israel becomes not a state with its own interests, mistakes, and calculations, but a universal culprit. If the war is unpopular — Israel is to blame. If the president made a mistake — he was controlled. If American politics is at an impasse — then someone from outside was pulling the strings.

For the Israeli audience, there is a painful signal here. Even when it comes to a specific politician, old anti-Semitic schemes quickly expand: from Netanyahu — to ‘pro-Israel supporters,’ from them — to American Jews, from political criticism — to suspicion of disloyalty.

This is why Nikk.Agency — Israel News | Nikk.Agency views this story not as another scandal around an American TV host, but as an alarming symptom: in the U.S., there is growing fatigue from Middle Eastern wars, but some public figures are trying to direct this fatigue towards anti-Semitic explanations.

The danger is not only from the right: a new common platform against Israel

The most unpleasant thing about this story is that it is not limited to one MAGA camp. Skepticism towards the U.S.-Israel alliance is growing both on the right and the left. The difference is only in language, but sometimes this language begins to suspiciously converge.

Right-wing isolationists say: America should not fight again for foreign interests.

Left-wing progressives say: The U.S. should not pay for Israel’s policy, especially against the backdrop of the war in Gaza and the huge number of Palestinian casualties.

Both positions can be part of a normal democratic discourse. One can oppose military aid to Israel. One can demand conditions, control, accountability, changes in Gaza policy, a review of military cooperation, or pressure on Netanyahu’s government.

But when these arguments are supplemented by the idea that Israel ‘drags,’ ‘controls,’ ‘blackmails,’ or ‘enslaves’ America, the debate changes its nature.

Carlson gives conspiracy a political packaging

The material emphasizes that Carlson has previously promoted strange versions about the role of Israel, Chabad, the war with Iran, and even religious plots around Jerusalem. He also spoke of Trump’s ‘supernatural’ ability to achieve obedience from his officials and used language that takes the conversation from politics to mysticism.

This makes the situation even more dangerous.

When a political commentator begins to describe international relations as a struggle of secret forces, magical influence, religious images, and hidden control, the audience stops looking for documents, decisions, protocols, interests, and responsibility. They are offered a simple picture: there are ‘they’ who control what is happening.

And in such pictures, Jews too often end up being appointed as the culprits.

Why Democrats and Republicans will have to choose

American politics is now entering a period where the issue of Israel is no longer an automatic consensus. More and more Democrats are advocating for restrictions on military aid. Some Republicans are moving towards isolationism. Young voters view Gaza, Iran, and the cost of alliances differently. This is a reality that Israel cannot ignore.

But this is precisely why the boundaries of language become critically important.

If Republicans are willing to use Carlson’s audience, they will have to answer whether they accept his anti-Semitic baggage along with it.

If Democrats want to criticize Israel from moral and human rights positions, they will have to especially carefully separate political criticism from hints of ‘Jewish influence’ and ‘hidden control.’

Otherwise, both sides risk arriving at the same dirty point — legitimizing anti-Semitism under the guise of fighting for peace, the economy, America’s independence, or human rights.

The end of this story is still open. But the main thing is already visible: criticism of Israel will only intensify, especially against the backdrop of war, Iran, and the crisis of trust in Netanyahu. The question is different — will this criticism remain in the field of politics or will it finally move into conspiracy theory.

For Israel, the U.S., and Jewish communities, this is not an abstract debate about rhetoric. It is a question of security, alliances, and how quickly old myths can return in the new information age — no longer through marginal leaflets, but through interviews, podcasts, political shows, and millions of views.

NAnews presents a news overview of the story of Tzvi Hirsh (Grigory), a 32-year-old soldier of the 34th Separate Coastal Defense Brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, who died defending Ukraine on the Kherson front line.

His death is not just a tragedy — it is a symbol of unity between the Jewish and Ukrainian peoples in the struggle against Putin’s aggression.

A man of light, strength, and contradictions

Tzvi Hirsh was born in Odesa, studied at the Jewish school “Or Avner – Chabad”, and was raised in an atmosphere of tradition and communal life. He began working at the age of 15 and never tolerated laziness in himself or others. His dream was to open a restaurant and earn a Michelin star, but life led him to the battlefield.

“He rarely spoke about emotions, but proved his love through actions — care, presence, loyalty,” his friends recall.

Family and children

Grigory left this world too soon. But he left behind the memory of a strong, radiant person whose will to live never faded. He became the father of two children — Lev (5 years old) and Alisa (4 years old) — parts of himself that nothing can destroy.

He dreamed of being their support, of building a future with them. Instead, he became a hero, sacrificing his life for their safety.

A hero without pathos

According to the Chief Rabbi of Odesa and Southern Ukraine, Avraham Wolff, Hirsh was an integral part of the community:

“Tzvi Hirsh gave his life with true self-sacrifice — as a Ukrainian soldier and a proud Jew. He was with us from childhood and has now departed as a hero.”

The sorrowful news was shared on June 6, 2025, by chaplain Yakov Sinyakov, who also arranged for the body to be returned to Odesa without autopsy, in accordance with Jewish law. The funeral will take place following Halacha.

Rabbi Avraham Wolff and the local Jewish community are organizing the funeral.

The Federation of Jewish Communities of Ukraine offers its sincere condolences to the family, friends, and comrades. We share this unspeakable grief.

How Israel and Ukraine are connected through lives

The story of Tzvi Hirsh is one of many confirming the deep connection between Israel and Ukraine. On the website NAnews – Israel News, we regularly publish materials about Jews defending Ukraine and Israeli aid to the country.

We report not just on facts, but on people who embody resilience, faith, and love. Tzvi Hirsh is a symbol of such people.

Community response

The Federation of Jewish Communities of Ukraine was the first to announce the tragedy and express deep condolences:

“Blessed is the True Judge. Baruch Dayan HaEmet.”

The Jewish community of Odesa is preparing the funeral, and words of support are coming from all over the world — especially from Israel, home to thousands of people with Ukrainian roots.

NAnews — what brings us together

The editorial team of NAnews – Israel News expresses its condolences to Grisha’s family, his children, friends, and fellow soldiers.

His story is a reminder: war is not abstract politics — it is real human lives. And in these lives, we find shared pain and a shared future — for Jews, Ukrainians, and all who refuse to accept darkness.

On May 13, 2026, the Israeli ambassador to Ukraine, Michael Brodsky, published on social media the text of his speech at a reception in Kyiv dedicated to Israel’s Independence Day. The reception itself took place on Monday, May 11, 2026, after the official date of Yom Ha’atzmaut, which Israel celebrated in 2026 on the evening of April 21 and April 22.

The main message of this speech was broader than diplomatic protocol. Brodsky spoke not only about the 78th anniversary of Israel’s independence but also about how war, anxieties, defense technologies, and the struggle for freedom have brought Israel and Ukraine closer together.

“There are few countries in the world that understand each other better”

At the beginning of his speech, the ambassador addressed Ukraine’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Yevhen Mishchenko, guests, and colleagues. He thanked them for attending the reception and immediately highlighted the key idea: Israel and Ukraine today understand each other not theoretically, but through the shared experience of living under threat.

According to Brodsky, there are few countries in the world that can so well understand each other’s situation. In recent years, air raid sirens have often sounded in both Israel and Ukraine. For the Israeli audience, this comparison is especially understandable: air raids have ceased to be news and have become part of everyday life, just as for the residents of Sderot, Ashkelon, Tel Aviv, or northern Israel, as well as for the residents of Kyiv, Odessa, Kharkiv, and other Ukrainian cities.

Brodsky specifically noted that Ukraine in many ways repeats the path that Israel has taken over its 78 years of existence. This is not about copying, but about a similar logic of survival: when a country is forced to build defense, technology, international relations, and national resilience simultaneously.

Diplomacy as medicine: “do no harm”

One of the strongest parts of the speech was dedicated to the relations between Israel and Ukraine. The ambassador acknowledged that the last year has been challenging for both countries, and there have been difficult moments in bilateral relations.

At the same time, Brodsky compared the relations between Israel and Ukraine to family relations. In a family, there are difficulties, sometimes the help of a “family psychologist” is needed, but the closeness itself does not disappear.

This formulation is important: it shows that the diplomat did not try to smooth everything over into an empty protocol phrase. He directly acknowledged the existence of problems but presented them as part of a living, close, and caring relationship.

Separately, Brodsky recalled that he once intended to become a doctor and drew a parallel between medicine and diplomacy. According to him, in both fields, the principle of “do no harm” primarily applies. During almost five years of work in Ukraine, as he said, he tried not to deviate from this principle.

For Israel and Ukraine, this sounds especially relevant. In the relations between the two countries, there have indeed been periods of tension: due to Kyiv’s expectations from Israel, Israel’s position on security issues, Ukraine’s reaction to the Middle East agenda, and the general pressure of war. But precisely for this reason, diplomatic caution sometimes becomes not a weakness but a way to maintain contact where emotions could destroy everything.

Golda Meir, Kyiv, and the right not to be pessimists

In his speech, Brodsky recalled Golda Meir, one of the most symbolic figures in Israel’s history. She was born in Kyiv, and today this fact again acquires special meaning for the Israeli-Ukrainian dialogue.

The ambassador quoted her phrase: “Pessimism is a luxury that Jews can never afford.” Brodsky added that today these words equally apply to both Israelis and Ukrainians.

At this point, the speech ceased to be purely diplomatic. It became a conversation about the national character of two societies that live under threat but do not have the right to build their future solely around fear.

Such statements are especially important for the Israeli audience today. NAnews — Israel News | Nikk.Agency notes that the topic of Ukrainian-Israeli relations increasingly goes beyond ordinary diplomacy: here memory, war, Jewish history, security, technology, and the question of how free countries withstand the pressure of terrorism and aggression are connected.

Brodsky’s tenure is coming to an end

The most personal moment was the ambassador’s acknowledgment of the imminent end of his tenure in Ukraine. Brodsky said that his work in Kyiv was special and added: he regrets only one thing — that peace did not come before the end of his mission in Ukraine.

Then came a phrase that became a political signal: “I appeal to those on whom it depends: you still have three months. It’s time to intensify these efforts.”

These words can be read as a diplomatic wish, but also as an emotional point in a complex mission. Brodsky headed the Israeli embassy in Ukraine in 2021, meaning a significant part of his tenure coincided with the period of full-scale Russian war against Ukraine. Ukrainian and Israeli sources have already reported that his term is coming to an end: Roy Rosenblit is expected to become the new Israeli ambassador to Ukraine.

Why this speech is important

The speech did not contain loud promises or sharp political attacks. But it contained several important signals.

Firstly, Israel publicly acknowledges Ukrainian resilience and the development of defense technologies as a significant experience.

Secondly, Brodsky once again linked Israel and Ukraine through the shared reality of war, anxieties, and the struggle for independence.

Thirdly, he effectively summed up his personal work in Kyiv — without a triumphant tone, but with clear regret that peace has not yet come.

In conclusion, the ambassador thanked the embassy staff and partner organizations: Nativ, Keren Kayemet LeIsrael, Keren Hayesod, Keren HaYedidut, Joint, and Sochnut.

For Israel, it was a speech about independence. For Ukraine — about war and hope. For the relations between the two countries — a reminder that even in difficult periods, the connection does not disappear if both sides understand the price of freedom.

On May 11–12, 2026, an interview with former press secretary of the President of Ukraine Yulia Mendel was released in the American media space by journalist Tucker Carlson, where the main participants in the political scandal were Mendel herself, the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky, the Russian dictator Putin, the Office of the President of Ukraine, and Ukrainian journalists, politicians, and experts who sharply reacted to what was said.

For Ukraine, this is not just another conflict around a former official.

For Israel, this story is also important. It shows how during a war, the words of former government representatives can turn into an independent front — informational, diplomatic, emotional, and very dangerous. Especially when such statements are made not in a neutral format, but on a platform where the Ukrainian position is often presented through doubt, Western fatigue, and the search for ‘culprits’ not in Moscow, but in Kyiv.

Mendel worked as Zelensky’s press secretary until the full-scale invasion of Russia. That is why her interview had such a strong effect: she spoke not as an outside observer, but as someone who was inside the presidential team for some time. The source material conveys in detail the key theses of the interview and the reaction of Ukrainian journalists, politicians, and experts.

What exactly did Mendel say and why was it perceived as a blow to Ukraine

At the beginning of the interview, Yulia Mendel stated that she was not trying to justify the Russian invasion, Putin, and the crimes of the Russian army. But immediately after that, she added a thought that became one of the most discussed: according to her, the war ‘is no longer black and white.’

Such a formulation in itself already sounds dangerous.

For a society that has experienced Bucha, Mariupol, missile strikes on residential buildings, occupation, deportations, and daily losses, the phrase that ‘everything is not so clear-cut’ is perceived not as intellectual complexity, but as a blurring of the aggressor’s responsibility. In the Ukrainian context, this is especially painful because similar constructions have been used by Russian propaganda for years.

Mendel then moved on to a direct attack on Zelensky. She effectively equated him with Putin, stating that the Ukrainian president is also ‘evil,’ only hidden. According to her version, on camera, Zelensky looks soft and safe, but in real politics, he turns into a tough leader who ‘destroys people.’

This was not just an emotional outburst.

Such words, spoken by a former presidential press secretary in the Western media space, instantly become material for quoting. They can be taken out of context, translated, spread through Telegram channels, inserted into Russian broadcasts, and presented as ‘an insider’s confession from Ukrainian authorities.’

Phrases about democracy and dictatorship

Mendel also claimed that during her work, Zelensky allegedly spoke about democracy and state governance in a harsh manner. Among the phrases attributed to him are ‘Ukraine is not ready for democracy’ and ‘dictatorship is order.’

These are very serious accusations.

They hit several points at once: the image of Zelensky as a military leader of a democratic country, the legitimacy of Ukrainian institutions, the trust of allies, and the internal discussion about freedoms during the war. At the same time, Mendel did not present public evidence of these words, which means that for journalistic and political assessment, an important caveat remains: it is about her claims, not an established fact.

But the scandal has already happened.

In the information war, it is often not proof that works, but impression. First, the phrase causes shock, then it begins to be discussed, then it becomes part of the general noise. Even if it is later refuted, the trace remains.

Paris, NATO, and Donbas: the most explosive claims of the interview

One of the central episodes of the interview is related to the meeting between Zelensky and Putin in Paris in December 2019. Mendel claimed that she was present near the process and that the Ukrainian president allegedly promised the Russian dictator in a personal conversation: Ukraine will not become a NATO member.

This thesis cannot be perceived as an ordinary detail from memories.

The NATO issue was one of Moscow’s main tools of pressure on Kyiv. Russia has been trying for years to present Ukraine’s aspiration for Euro-Atlantic integration as a ‘threat’ and a pretext for aggression. Therefore, any words about allegedly given promises become a gift for the Kremlin’s version of events.

Especially if they come from the mouth of someone who once officially represented the President of Ukraine to the press.

It is important to emphasize here: Mendel did not provide documents, recordings, or confirmations. She told her version. And a version spoken on such a platform and at such a moment works not as a memoir detail, but as a political signal.

Istanbul negotiations and the claim about Donbas

Even more resonance was caused by Mendel’s words about the negotiations in Istanbul in 2022. She stated that Zelensky was allegedly ready to give Donbas to Russia to end the war.

According to her, this information was told to her by people representing Ukraine at the negotiations. She described it as shocking news: as if the Ukrainian side was ready to agree to a territorial concession to stop the horror of the war.

But this is where the scandal moved into the most dangerous zone.

Donbas is not an abstract negotiation point. It is Ukrainian territory, people, cities, cemeteries, homes, ruined destinies, occupation, and a long-standing war that began back in 2014. Therefore, the claim of readiness to ‘give Donbas’ is inevitably perceived as a political bomb.

The Office of the President of Ukraine sharply rejected this version.

In the Ukrainian reaction, it was stated that Mendel did not participate in the negotiations, did not make state decisions, and was not involved in the negotiation process. They also questioned the reliability and adequacy of her statements.

Formally, it was a comment on a specific interview.

In essence, it was an attempt to stop the spread of a narrative that could be used against Ukraine on the international level. Because if the external audience hears only Mendel’s version, it may get a false impression: as if Kyiv was once ready for capitulation terms, and now just ‘changed its mind.’

Why this is especially sensitive for Israel

The Israeli audience understands well that the issue of territories, negotiations, and security is never simple. In Israel, they have known for decades the price of formulations that sound in diplomacy, the press, and behind-the-scenes negotiations.

One phrase can change the tone of the discussion.

One former official can give opponents of the state material for pressure.

One broadcast on a large platform can become part of a campaign that then lives its own life.

That is why the story with Mendel is important not only as a Ukrainian scandal. It shows how in wartime, personal grievances, political ambitions, media thirst for attention, and external interests can mix into one toxic plot.

Appeal to Putin and the role of Tucker Carlson

A separate blow to the perception of the interview was dealt by its finale. Mendel switched to Russian and addressed Putin directly.

She called herself an ordinary Ukrainian woman from Kherson. She said she does not represent NATO, the West, or Zelensky. She emphasized that she is not a political opponent of the Russian dictator and poses no threat to him. Then she urged him to stop the war with one decision.

The very appeal to Putin during the war already caused outrage.

But even more, many were hurt by the formula that in this conflict ‘Slavs are killing Slavs.’ For the Ukrainian audience, such a phrase sounds like a return to the old imperial trap: as if it is about a tragic quarrel of ‘brotherly peoples,’ and not about a war of an aggressor against an independent state.

Ukraine did not attack Russia.

Ukraine did not occupy Russian territories.

Ukraine did not destroy Russian cities, did not kidnap Russian children, did not launch missiles at Russian high-rises, and did not try to erase Russian identity.

Therefore, the formula ‘Slavs are killing Slavs’ looks not peace-making, but politically blurred. It diverts attention from the main thing: the responsibility for the war lies with Russia and its leadership.

Why Carlson is not a neutral platform

The scandal was intensified by the fact that the interview was released specifically with Tucker Carlson.

Carlson has long been perceived in Ukraine as a media figure who is critical of aid to Kyiv, gives space to anti-Ukrainian theses, and willingly talks with figures important for the Russian propaganda picture of the world. His interview with Putin became one of the most notable examples of how the Russian dictator got direct access to the Western audience.

Therefore, Mendel’s appearance with Carlson did not look like a random choice of platform.

It looked like an appeal to an audience where there is already a demand for theses about the ‘ambiguity’ of the war, fatigue from Ukraine, ‘mistakes of Zelensky,’ and the need for urgent peace at almost any cost.

For the international audience, this may look like a ‘bold confession of a former employee.’ For Ukrainians, it is like a stab in the back during the war.

NANews — Israel News | Nikk.Agency considers such stories not as ordinary media scandals, but as part of a large informational struggle around Ukraine, Israel, and the entire democratic world. In both cases, opponents bet not only on weapons but also on societal fatigue, internal conflicts, distrust of leaders, and the destruction of moral clarity.

Ukrainian reaction: from outrage to talks of treason

Ukrainian journalists, politicians, and experts reacted sharply. And it was expected.

Marina Danilyuk-Yermolayeva, a journalist, blogger, and editor-in-chief of the ‘Espreso’ website, wrote that Mendel’s interview showed how former representatives of Zelensky’s team can ‘betray’ each other. In her assessment, it looked like a moment when people from the former circle begin to bring internal conflicts outside, and not in a Ukrainian professional format, but through an American platform with a very specific audience.

She also harshly criticized the very way Mendel got into the presidential team. The essence of her reaction was simple: when people are chosen not for deep professional reputation, but for effectiveness, randomness, or public visibility, the state may later pay a reputational price for it.

Tatyana Troshchinskaya looked at the story more broadly.

She recalled Mendel’s book ‘Each of Us is a President,’ published in 2021, and a fragment where Maidan was described through ‘dirty tents,’ cold nights, the risk of being beaten, water cannons, gas, and revolutionary ‘romance.’ According to Troshchinskaya, such language showed not just a stylistic failure, but a deep alienation from the experience of people for whom Maidan was not ‘unhygienic romance,’ but a struggle for dignity and European choice.

In her reaction, there was an important thought: the interview with Carlson did not appear out of nowhere. It only highlighted what critics believe was noticeable in Mendel for a long time.

Iryna Gerashchenko: the profession requires restraint

People’s Deputy Iryna Gerashchenko, who previously worked as the press secretary of the third President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko, emphasized professional ethics.

She reminded that a press secretary or a person close to the president sees many closed processes. They can witness historical decisions, complex conversations, mistakes, conflicts, emotional moments. But that is why the profession requires not only access but maturity.

Not everything a person has seen needs to be made public.

Not everything that can be said should be said.

Not every personal disappointment justifies a public blow to the state during the war.

Gerashchenko emphasized that there are always many things left behind the scenes, and a person involved in state processes must understand the boundary between the right to an opinion and responsibility to the country.

This sounded especially strong because it was not about defending Zelensky as a politician. It was about the principle: former officials should not turn state processes into raw material for foreign political shows.

Lena Chichenina, Maria Popova, and the reaction of the professional environment

The editor-in-chief of the media tabloid ‘Antonina’ Lena Chichenina reacted sarcastically and emotionally. She was outraged by the theatricality of the interview: metaphors, acting delivery, dramatic comparisons of Zelensky with ‘teddy bear’ and ‘grizzly bear,’ as well as the overall tone in which the conversation about the war almost turned into a scene.

Maria Popova, a representative of the Ukrainian Defense Industry Council, focused on the issue of trust. She wrote that after such an interview, it is hard to imagine how Mendel could be trusted with work even with minimal access to confidential information.

This is no longer just an emotional assessment.

This is a question of security. During the war, information, connections, former access, and personal knowledge can become a sensitive resource. If a person uses a public platform for statements that potentially harm the country, the question arises: how reliable was the system of selection and trust?

Experts saw a dangerous signal for the external audience in the interview

Strategic communications expert Volodymyr Anfimov called the interview difficult to watch and at times disgusting. He was particularly struck by the fact that Mendel, already at the beginning of the conversation, presented Zelensky as one of the key obstacles to ending the war.

In his assessment, the most dangerous effect of the interview is the signal to the external audience: as if it is Ukraine, not Russia, that is hindering peace.

This is the central point.

Russian propaganda has been trying for years to convince the Western audience that the war can be ended quickly if Kyiv ‘becomes more realistic,’ gives up territories, stops demanding weapons, does not ‘stubbornly resist,’ and agrees to Moscow’s terms. When a similar meaning is voiced by a former press secretary of the Ukrainian president, it gains additional strength.

Anfimov also drew attention to the image of Ukraine that emerged from Mendel’s words. In her description, the country looked almost doomed: a frightened population, fear of speaking openly, the risk of ending up in prison or on the front line, lack of prospects, exhaustion, and internal degradation.

Such an image is dangerous.

It demoralizes its own and gives arguments to others.

For Israel, this logic is also familiar. When enemies cannot quickly break a country militarily, they try to convince the outside world that resistance is pointless, leadership is illegitimate, society is tired, and continuing the struggle is just a whim of politicians.

Yuriy Goncharenko and Yuriy Fizer: the question of state treason

The head of the research and analytical group InfoLight.UA Yuriy Goncharenko called Mendel’s actions direct state treason. He expressed the opinion that Ukrainian special services should evaluate her statements and bring the issue to court.

International journalist and TV presenter Yuriy Fizer also raised the question of a possible investigation. He emphasized that it is difficult to suspect him of sympathy for Zelensky, but after watching the interview, he had one main question: will the SBU open a case of state treason?

At the same time, Fizer made an important reservation. He admitted that part of Mendel’s words may contain elements of truth or reflect some real internal processes. But, in his opinion, even if this is so, the question remains: does a citizen of Ukraine have the moral right during the war to make such statements on an external platform that many perceive as hostile to Ukraine?

This is where the main line of conflict lies.

Not between supporters and opponents of Zelensky.

But between the right to criticize the government and the risk of playing into the enemy’s hands.

Tatyana Popova: ‘the mistake of the first appointments’

Journalist Tatyana Popova called Mendel an obvious mistake of the first appointments. She recalled meeting her in 2019 through the Council on Freedom of Speech at the Office of the President and wrote that she was shocked by her behavior.

According to Popova, she was not the only one shocked. Mendel already then regularly got into conflicts with journalists. Episodes with Christopher Miller, Zabelina, and other media representatives were remembered.

This reaction is important because it shifts the conversation from one interview to a systemic problem of the first personnel decisions of Zelensky’s team. In 2019, the new government came with the idea of renewal, openness, and ‘people from the people.’ But renewal without a professional filter sometimes leads to random or poorly prepared people gaining access to too serious processes.

And then their personal stories become a problem for the state.

Political background: Yermak, rumors, tension, and versions of coincidences

A separate layer of reaction is related to the general political background. The source material mentions that some commentators linked the release of the interview with other events around the former head of the Office of the President Andriy Yermak and the general nervousness of Ukrainian politics.

Former SBU speaker and journalist Stanislav Rechinsky suggested that the timing coincidence might not be accidental. His comment was built around an alarming scenario: pressure on Zelensky, possible attempts to force him to make decisions, talks about a peace agreement with the Russian Federation, the risk of internal upheavals.

Such versions remain assessments and assumptions.

But their appearance shows the level of tension. When a country is at war, any major informational attack is perceived not in isolation, but as a possible part of a broader combination. Especially if it simultaneously features themes of Zelensky, Yermak, negotiations, Donbas, Putin, the USA, and external pressure.

Natalia Fedorishin, founder of the Kyiv School of Political Technologies, compared the feeling from Mendel’s interview to the film ‘Bugonia’. According to her, different genres and scales can give the same effect: a collision with something chaotic, impulsive, and destructive, which is difficult to comprehend rationally.

This is a good description of the general mood after the interview.

People argued not only about the facts. They tried to understand what it was all about: personal revenge, a political signal, an attempt to return to the public eye, a conscious play for an external audience, or just a destructive media gesture.

Why this story is not just about Mendel’s personality

It’s tempting to say: this is just the story of a former press secretary who decided to loudly remind everyone of herself.

But it’s more complicated.

Mendel’s interview became a point where several major issues converged: personnel policy, trust in former officials, the secrecy of negotiation processes, the weakness of public communications, society’s fatigue from the war, Western discussions about aid to Ukraine, and the Russian information strategy.

That’s why the reaction was so intense.

Ukrainians argue not only about whether Mendel told the truth or lied. They argue about who has the right to speak on behalf of the country when the country is at war. About whether personal experience in power can be used as material for someone else’s show. About where freedom of speech ends and harm to national security begins.

For Israel, this logic is also perfectly understandable.

A country under constant external pressure knows that internal conflicts will always be used by opponents. This does not mean that the authorities cannot be criticized. On the contrary, criticism is necessary. But criticism and informational self-destruction are not the same thing.

The main conclusion: the interview became not a conversation about the past, but a blow to the present.

The story with Mendel’s interview is important not because it contained criticism of Zelensky. The Ukrainian president has been criticized for a long time and for various reasons: for personnel decisions, for the role of the President’s Office, for communications, for government mistakes, for complex relationships with political opponents.

The problem is not in the fact of criticism itself.

The problem is in how, where, and in what framework it was voiced.

When the former press secretary of the Ukrainian president goes to Tucker Carlson and talks about Zelensky as a hidden evil, about alleged promises to Putin, about readiness to give up Donbass, and about ‘Slavs killing Slavs’, it stops being an ordinary interview. It becomes an event of informational warfare.

For Russia, such words are convenient.

For Ukraine, they are painful.

For the Western audience, they can become another reason to doubt, to get tired, to distance themselves, and to say: ‘Maybe it’s really more complicated there?’

And for Israel, this story is a reminder that the war for international perception can sometimes be no less harsh than the war on the ground. Especially when the opponent knows how to wait, pick up someone else’s words, and turn them into evidence of their lies.

The scandal around Mendel will still develop. There may be new reactions, legal assessments, political comments, and additional explanations. But one thing is already clear: this interview became not just a conversation of a former press secretary with an American journalist.

It became a test of the maturity of society, the resilience of the state, and the ability to distinguish honest criticism from an informational blow at a time when the country continues to fight for its existence.

David Horowitz is a name that represents an incredible journey from the small town of Drohobych on the territory of modern Ukraine to the leadership of the financial system of the state of Israel.

His life’s journey, full of challenges and achievements, continues to inspire generations.

David Horowitz was born on February 15, 1899 in the city of Drohobych, which at that time was part of Austria-Hungary, and later became part of Western Ukraine.

The region, known for its ethnic and cultural diversity, played an important role in shaping the young Horowitz’s worldview.

Drohobych of the late 19th and early 20th centuries was a city with an active Jewish community, which made up about 40% of the population. The Jews of Drohobych were engaged in trade, crafts and art; there were synagogues, schools and cultural centers in the city. It was here that David Horowitz absorbed a love for Jewish traditions and developed an interest in the ideas of Zionism.

Impact of the events of the First World War

David’s childhood was spent in conditions of instability. The outbreak of World War I forced the Horowitz family to leave Drohobych and move to Vienna. This forced move became the first big test for young David, who early learned to be independent. In Vienna, he began working selling newspapers to help his family, which strengthened his character.

After the end of the war, the family returned to Lviv, where David continued his studies at the gymnasium. It was here that he began to actively participate in the Zionist movement, which was especially popular among the Jewish youth of Galicia.

---

“Hashomer ha-tzair”: the beginning of the path to Eretz Israel

Zionist ideas swept Eastern Galicia at the beginning of the 20th century, and David Horowitz became one of the leading representatives of the movement. In 1918, he and like-minded people founded the youth movement Hashomer Hatzair (Young Guardian). The first congress of the movement took place in Tarnov, and the second in Lvov, which indicates the important role of Galicia as a center of Jewish youth activity.

Young Zionists like David saw their mission as reviving Jewish life in Palestine. They sought to create a new society based on equality, work and national identity. In 1920, David Horowitz, along with a group of 131 participants, immigrated to Eretz Israel. These young people, leaving the comfortable conditions of city life in Galicia, became pioneers in the construction of the Jewish state.

Beitaniya Ilit: the beginning of the Zionist kibbutz movement

Beitaniya Illit, or Upper Beitaniya, was one of the first communes in Eretz Israel, created by members of the Hashomer Hatzair movement in 1920. This unique experiment was located on the mountain slopes near Lake Kinneret, where young Zionists from Galicia began to build their new future. The 131-member group, having left a comfortable life in Europe, chose hard work and spartan conditions to realize their dream of reviving Jewish society.

Upper Beytaniya (Beytaniya-Ilit) was a unique project in which most of the participants were indeed Jews from Ukrainian Galicia. These young idealists formed the core of the group that gathered to create the first kibbutz of the Hashomer Hatzair movement. All of them were activists inspired by Zionist ideals and came to Eretz Israel in 1920.

Who were the participants from Ukraine?

Among the leaders and participants who came from Galicia (the territory of modern Ukraine), the following names can be distinguished:

1. Dov Opper from Zolochev – one of the prominent leaders of the group.
2. Arie Alweil from Bibrka – an active organizer of the movement.
3. Meir Wald from near Przemysl – a leader who inspired the participants.
4. Benjamin Freivogel from Stanislaviv (now Ivano-Frankivsk) – one of the leading ideologists.
5. Milek Goldstein from Podvolochisk, near Ternopil – an active participant in the commune.
6. David Horowitz from Drohobych – future economist and president of the Bank of Israel, who in his youth was an important figure in the project.
7. Aba Shneller from Turki, Lviv region – participant in the first “Galician landing”.

These people were driven by the idea of ​​​​creating a New Man – a free Jew, capable of working on his historical land. Many of them left a significant mark on the history of Israel, becoming political, social and military leaders.

---

Ukrainian connection

Most of the kibbutz members come from small towns and villages in Galicia, such as Zolochev, Bibrka, Drohobych and Stanislavov. At the beginning of the twentieth century, these cities were centers of Jewish culture, where young people actively participated in the Zionist movement. It was Ukrainian Galicia that became the starting point for the formation of the first Zionist communes, which made this region key in the history of Zionism and the kibbutz movement.

---

Financial Architect of Israel

Despite having no formal education in economics, David Horowitz became a self-taught man whose knowledge and abilities shaped the future of Israel’s financial system.

Key achievements:

1. Management of the Economic Department of the Jewish Agency (1935): Horowitz played an important role in developing the Yishuv’s economic policies.
2. First Director General of the Ministry of Finance (1948): He led the process of building the financial infrastructure of the newly formed state.
3. Creation of the Bank of Israel (1954): Horowitz became the first president of a state-owned bank, which he headed for 17 years.

---

Historical heritage

One of the most important works of David Horowitz was the book “In the Service of a Young State.” In it, he described his relationship with the British Mandate authorities and the challenges facing the Yishuv. This work remains an important source for the study of Israeli history.

The influence of Galicia on the worldview of David Horowitz

Galicia, with its unique mixture of cultures and ethnic diversity, shaped Horowitz’s broad worldview. Here he acquired skills in interacting with various communities, which later helped him in building economic and political ties in Israel.

Galicia was also a region where the Jewish community actively developed, despite difficulties. David Horowitz imbibed the entrepreneurial spirit and desire for self-fulfillment that later helped him become an outstanding economist.

Connection with Ukraine: Galicia and the future of Israel

Drohobych and Lvov became for David Horowitz the launching pad for his life’s journey. These cities, like the entire region of Galicia, occupied an important place in the history of the Jews of Eastern Europe. This is where many of the leaders of the Zionist movement came from, including David Horowitz, who became a key figure in the creation of Israel’s financial system.

Horowitz’s story is a striking example of how the Jewish community of Ukraine made significant contributions to the construction of the Jewish state. Within the category “Cycle Jews from Ukraine”website NAnews – Israel News continues to talk about outstanding personalities whose roots are connected with Ukraine.

You can read more in the section “Jews from Ukraine” on our website NAnews.

…

Read on WhatsApp — channel NAnews ↓ — Israel News

Read on Telegram – channel NAnews ↓ — Israel News

Today we are talking about a Hollywood star – Mile Markovna Kunis! — New section 🔯 — Jews from Ukraine 🇺🇦

📍 Birth and emigration

• Born August 14, 1983 in Chernivtsi, Ukraine 🇺🇦.
• At the age of 7, she emigrated with her family to Los Angeles, USA 🇺🇸.

🕯 Tragic family story

Many of Mila’s relatives died during the Holocaust. The actress has repeatedly mentioned anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union:

“We were brought up like this: you’re a Jew, just don’t tell anyone about it. That’s why we moved to the US.”

🕎 Judaism and Kabbalah

The Jewish religion plays an important role in the life of Mila and her family.

“We celebrate Yom Kippur and Hanukkah, although not always according to all the rules. I love our religion. I go to synagogue not out of obligation, but because it is important to me.”

Mila and her family light Shabbat candles, read prayers, and her children know blessings in Hebrew.

She also emphasizes the importance of family traditions:

“On Fridays, we get together as a family, look into each other’s eyes, say “I love you” and share the events of the week. This time strengthens our connection. No matter where we are, we always find a moment for it.”

🧬 Jewish roots

A genealogical DNA test showed that Mila is ethnically 98% Ashkenazi Jewish.

“I’m quite Jewish, but in New York I’m becoming super Jewish!”

🤝 Marriage to Ashton Kutcher

Mila’s husband, actor Ashton Kutcher, although not Jewish, shares her spiritual interests:

“He speaks and reads Hebrew and has read the Torah a million times. He taught me something I didn’t know myself.”

Ashton visited Israel more than once, including with Mila. In 2013, they came to Safed for the funeral of Kabbalist Philip Berg.

“Israel is dear to my heart. For me, it’s like going back to the roots of creativity, which is inspiring on all levels.”

---

🇺🇦 Help to Ukraine

The full-scale war with Russia strengthened Mila’s Ukrainian identity.

“I have never been more proud of my origins than I am now. I’m proud to be Ukrainian.”

💪 Charity

• Mila and Ashton collected more than $35 million to help Ukrainian displaced people, donating 3 million of their own funds for this.
• At the Oscar ceremony, the actress announced a minute of silence in memory of those killed in Ukraine.

👦🏻 Meet Vladimir Zelensky

Mila has known Vladimir Zelensky since 2016, when she discussed with him the rights to a remake of the series “Servant of the People”.

“When I saw that Ukraine had a new Jewish president, I thought: “Mazal tov!” This is a familiar surname!” Later I found correspondence with him.”

Mila and Ashton met with Zelensky and his wife Elena several times, including in New York, where they discussed cooperation between Ukraine and the United States in the film industry.

---

🏆 Achievements of Mila Kunis

• In 2022 entered the list 100 most influential people in the world according to version Timealong with Vladimir Zelensky.
• Took 1st place in the ranking “100 Sexiest Women in the World” (FHM) and 4th place among the most beautiful women (Maxim).
• Recognized Esquire the sexiest woman on the planet.

---

🎬 Selected films of Mila Kunis

1. Black swan (2010)
2. Sex buddies (2011)
3. Third wheel (2012)
4. Oz the Great and Powerful (2013)

---

Mila Kunis: the pride of the Jews of Ukraine

Mila Kunis is not only one of the most successful actresses in Hollywood, but also a shining example of a Jew of Ukrainian origin who maintains a connection with culture, religion and his native land. Her contributions to Ukraine and respect for Jewish tradition serve as an inspiration to millions.

This article was prepared specifically for the site NAnewswhere you will find even more interesting stories about prominent Ukrainian Jews, such as Mila Kunis.

Veda section @davidkrutonog — Jew from Ukraine and founder of a marketing agency tlv.agency

Leave a comment in Telegram channel NAnews ↓ — Israel News