Crimea, Golan Heights and 'Stolen Grain': Ukraine’s Diplomatic Offensive Meets Israeli Realism

Ukraine is once again attempting to ignite a diplomatic scandal over Russian grain delivered to the port of Haifa.

Photo: Pravda.Ru by Daria Aslamova

Golan Heights

Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha said Kyiv had summoned Israeli Ambassador Mikhail Brodsky to "demand appropriate measures” regarding a vessel which, according to Ukraine, transported grain from territories controlled by Russia that Kyiv considers occupied. The trigger was not only the latest shipment, but also the fact that similar cargoes had already been unloaded in Israel earlier this year despite Ukrainian protests.

Israel's response was, in essence, straightforward: the state acts within the law, and accusations require evidence. According to media reports, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar, during a conversation with Sybiha, stated that Ukraine had not presented proof that the grain was "stolen.”

Whose Grain Is It?

And this is where the situation becomes especially interesting. Behind the loud rhetoric about "stolen grain” stands a standard commercial supply chain. Grain is not traded through slogans on social media, but through contracts, traders, brokers, shipping documents, certificates of origin, phytosanitary paperwork, ports of loading and buyers who see a commercial cargo in front of them.

If the documentation identifies the grain as Russian, if the vessel is properly registered, if the cargo has passed port procedures, and if the seller operates through the legal market, then for the importer this is not a political declaration but simply merchandise.

Who exactly buys such grain in Israel? Publicly, that information is usually not disclosed. Most likely, these are private importers: grain traders, feed-sector companies, flour producers or intermediaries operating through international contracts. Israel has long purchased Russian grain, and if the paperwork is in order, then from the perspective of a local buyer the transaction appears legitimate: there is a seller, a port, a cargo and documentation.

The Ukrainian side is attempting to move a commercial transaction into the sphere of information warfare: if the cargo arrived from Russia but may have been grown on territory Ukraine considers occupied, then it is supposedly not just grain but political evidence. Israel, judging by its reaction, is not prepared to turn every grain carrier into a session of the UN Security Council.

But then another question emerges — not for Israel, but for the logic of the West itself.

Whose Jerusalem Is It?

If Crimea is still "not Russia” for the European Union, then the Golan Heights are not Israel either. And East Jerusalem is not Israel. And products made by Israelis beyond the 1967 lines are also not entirely Israeli.

For anyone unaware, the European Commission explicitly states that the EU does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza as territories occupied since 1967.

Moreover, the Court of Justice of the European Union, in the Psagot case, confirmed that products from Israeli settlements must not be labeled as ordinary Israeli goods, but must indicate their origin from the relevant territory and settlement.

And so a simple question arises: if a Russian farmer in Crimea grows wheat and it is therefore supposedly no longer Russian, then if an Israeli farmer in the Golan grows grapes, does that mean they are not Israeli either?

Here it is — the lofty science of European geography: the land exists, crops grow, people work, taxes are paid, documents are issued, products are sold, yet the identity of goods is determined not by who produced them, but by whoever in Brussels currently decides whether that territory is "acceptable.”

Crimean wheat becomes "politically suspicious.”

Wine from the Golan becomes "a product of special origin.”

Jerusalem tomatoes become almost a diplomatic landmine.

It is difficult not to draw parallels when European logic itself carefully leads us there by the hand. If wine from the Golan and vegetables from Jerusalem are, in the EU's view, produced by Israelis but still not entirely Israeli because "legally we do not recognize this territory as Israel,” then why can the same formula not be applied when speaking about Crimea, Donetsk or Lugansk?

People live in these "unrecognized” territories and have long been integrated into the corresponding state systems. Israelis live in the Golan Heights. Russian citizens live in Crimea, Donetsk and Lugansk. Those who did not accept this reality largely left long ago. The rest work, sow crops, harvest, pay taxes, receive documents and sell products through functioning legal and commercial mechanisms.

But then the great arbiter of international morality appears and says: facts are certainly interesting, but we have resolutions.

That is precisely why goods suddenly cease to be merely goods. Grain, wine, tomatoes, oil, flour — all of it stops being agricultural produce and becomes small geopolitical suitcases with handles. They can no longer simply be bought, sold, transported and consumed. First one must determine whether this tomato violates someone's diplomatic sensitivities.

The mechanism is essentially the same everywhere: a product becomes political not because of the grain, wine or vegetables themselves, but because sovereignty over the territory of origin is disputed.

Within this framework, a product acquires not only a price, weight, grade and quality, but also a biography. And not an agricultural biography, but an ideological one. The buyer is expected to ask not "What is the moisture level of the grain?” or "What grape variety is this?” but something entirely different: "Does this product happen to violate someone's resolution?”

Why Israel's Foreign Ministry Saw No Problem

Perhaps the Israeli Foreign Ministry reacted without much enthusiasm to Ukraine's accusations because officials in Jerusalem know this melody very well. Today Kyiv is trying to apply to Russian grain the same formula Brussels has used for years against Israeli goods from the Golan Heights, Jerusalem and the settlements.

Ukraine says: the documents are Russian, but the territory is disputed — therefore the goods are suspicious.

The EU tells Israel: the producer is Israeli, the documents are Israeli, but the territory is disputed — therefore the goods are not entirely Israeli.

The logic is familiar. Too familiar.

That is why Israel's response looks less like indifference and more like a refusal to participate in someone else's legal-information game. Show the evidence, show the legal violation, show exactly where the Israeli importer is obligated to become an archaeologist tracing the origin of every grain of wheat.

For now there is a vessel, a cargo, documents, a contract, brokers, port procedures and an ordinary commercial transaction.

Israeli companies have been buying Russian grain for years not to participate in a geopolitical drama, but because the country needs grain. It is purchased through traders, brokers, suppliers and logistical chains. This is not a UN General Assembly session but a food market.

But Ukrainian diplomacy is asking Israeli buyers to think not about price, quality and delivery schedules, but about how Kyiv interprets the origin of the shipment. In other words, it is effectively proposing to move Ukraine's war into an Israeli port, customs office and breadbasket.

From Kyiv's point of view, the strategy looks elegant: create noise, summon the ambassador, accuse Israel of insufficient sensitivity and push the press to write about "stolen grain.”

From Israel's perspective, the situation is far more prosaic: there are proper documents, official deliveries, private contracts, a market and the country's need for grain. If Ukraine believes otherwise, it should present legal evidence, not media headlines.

And here the truly interesting part begins. Ukraine demands that people ignore the documents and dig deeper: where exactly could the grain have entered the Russian export chain?

But this is precisely how the EU treats Israeli products from the Golan Heights, Jerusalem and the settlements: not according to the paperwork, not according to the producer, not according to who actually controls the territory, but according to a political interpretation of origin.

In other words, Kyiv is asking Israel to adopt against Russia the very same logic Europe has long used against Israel itself.

At this point Jerusalem's diplomatic calculation becomes entirely understandable. If Israel accepts such logic regarding Russian grain, it indirectly validates the European approach toward its own products: there may be documents, farmers and control over the territory, but if someone dislikes the map on which the goods were produced, then the products become politically contaminated.

That is why Israel's answer can be read very simply: show a violation of the law, not demands to turn a commercial transaction into a referendum on territorial status.

Otherwise tomorrow any cargo can be stopped not because the documents are incorrect, but because someone disliked the map on which it was produced.

And Finally, for Reference

Ukraine is demanding that Israel refuse to recognize Russian documentation for Crimean grain because Kyiv does not recognize Crimea as Russian. Yet Ukraine itself supports the same logic regarding Israel in international votes: the Golan Heights are not Israel, East Jerusalem is not Israel, and the settlements are not considered ordinary Israeli territory.

UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/78/78 on Israeli settlements explicitly refers to the "occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan.” It passed with 149 votes in favor, 6 against and 19 abstentions. Ukraine was among the countries supporting that position.

And this is where the diplomatic irony becomes almost perfect: Kyiv is asking Israel to apply against Russia the same principle Ukraine already supports against Israel itself.

"Don't tell me what to do, and I won't tell you where to go.”