“The only country that did not invite Zelensky is Israel”: what is behind Barak Ravid’s statement

On March 28, 2026, this story took on an unpleasant dimension for Jerusalem. While Volodymyr Zelensky is traveling through the Gulf countries, negotiating military cooperation, fuel, and joint projects against the Iranian threat, Axios correspondent Barak Ravid wrote on X that the only country that did not invite him was Israel. Ravid also added: “Benjamin Netanyahu requested a phone conversation with Zelensky two weeks ago but then did not call back“. This is an important caveat: it is currently about Ravid’s public message, not an official statement from the Prime Minister’s office.

“Ukrainian President Zelensky has been visiting all the Gulf countries for the past two days to strengthen security cooperation against Iran. The only country that did not invite him is Israel. Netanyahu requested a phone conversation with him two weeks ago but did not call and disappeared. Meanwhile, Putin continues to provide Iran with continuous military assistance.”

President of Ukraine Zelensky has been visiting all the Gulf countries for the past two days to tighten security cooperation against Iran. The only country that did not invite him is Israel. Netanyahu requested to speak with him on the phone two weeks ago but did not call and disappeared. At the same time, Putin continues to assist Iran militarily non-stop.

— Barak Ravid (@BarakRavid) March 28, 2026

For the Israeli audience, the issue here is not about protocol or who formally “invited” whom.

The problem is in the signal.

Against the backdrop of the war with Iran, Ukraine suddenly ceased to be just an Eastern European country repelling Russia for the Gulf countries. Kyiv began selling the region what is now of the highest value — real, hard-earned, battle-tested experience in countering Iranian drones and missiles.

And at this moment, the Kyiv-Jerusalem line looks not strengthened but suspended.

What happened during Zelensky’s tour of the Middle East

Ukraine came not to ask, but to negotiate experience

According to Reuters and AP, Zelensky recently visited the UAE and Qatar, and before that, Kyiv had already established a similar defense track with Saudi Arabia. With Qatar, it is about a 10-year partnership in countering missile and drone threats, a similar agreement with the UAE is expected, and Ukrainian specialists are already working in the region’s countries, helping to protect critical infrastructure from attacks. In these negotiations, Ukraine acts not only as a seeker of military aid but also as a supplier of expertise, which has become literally strategic for the region after Iranian strikes.

This is the main shift that Israel should see without complacency. For several years, many here viewed Ukraine either through a Russian lens or through the old formula “yes, war, but it’s far away.” Now this is no longer the case. Ukraine has entered Middle Eastern security through the most sensitive door — through the Iranian issue. And if Doha, Abu Dhabi, and Riyadh understood this quickly, then in Jerusalem, it seems, they are still delaying the political conclusion. This is already an analytical conclusion from the sequence of events, not a direct quote, but the facts are exactly as they are.

Fuel, drones, and long contracts turned out to be part of one deal

Simultaneously, Zelensky was solving a much more down-to-earth task. Reuters reported that Ukraine is seeking new diesel fuel supplies from the Middle East because diesel is currently the most sensitive part of the country’s fuel balance. Later, Zelensky himself told journalists that he agreed on diesel supplies for at least a year. For Ukraine, this is not only an economic issue but also one of the army, logistics, sowing, and the internal movement of the entire warring country.

That is why the current tour cannot be read as an ordinary diplomatic trip with beautiful photos. It was an attempt to integrate Ukraine into a new regional reality, where the fight against Iran, energy protection, joint productions, and long military agreements become part of one package. In this package, Kyiv offers the Gulf countries protection and know-how, and in return receives not only money and contracts but also a vital resource.

Why the story with Israel looks especially awkward

Because it seems that Jerusalem itself was seeking contact

The most unpleasant thing for the Israeli leadership in this story is not even Ravid’s post, but the contrast with what happened quite recently. As recently as March 14, Ynet reported that Netanyahu requested talks with Zelensky specifically on the topic of Ukrainian experience in combating Iranian drones. The Times of Israel also wrote that the discussion could concern cooperation in countering Iranian drones. In other words, Jerusalem itself acknowledged that Kyiv has what it needs.

And here begins a political, not a technical question. If two weeks ago the Prime Minister requested contact because Israel needs Ukrainian anti-drone experience, and today, according to Ravid, the conversation did not take place and the visit was not offered, it does not look like a minor organizational mishap. It looks like a symptom of deeper indecision: Jerusalem wants Ukrainian technologies and knowledge but is still not ready to establish a clear political line with Kyiv against the backdrop of the war with Iran and Moscow’s ongoing military assistance to Tehran.

This is where НАновости — News of Israel | Nikk.Agency sees the main meaning of this story. Today, Israel is actually facing what Ukrainians have long been talking about: the Iranian threat no longer lives in a parallel reality separate from Russia’s war against Ukraine. These two tracks have merged. And if Kyiv is already making diplomatic and military-technical conclusions from this, then Jerusalem seems to continue moving with short tactical bursts, without a formed strategy on the Ukrainian direction.

What this means for the Israeli audience right now

Zelensky brings from the Gulf not symbols, but a new position of Ukraine

AP and Reuters separately noted that Zelensky did not see signs of redirecting American weapons from the Ukrainian direction to the Middle East, although he acknowledged the dependence of further decisions on how long the war lasts. At the same time, he denied pressure with a demand to concede Donbass in exchange for security guarantees, although he himself previously in an interview with Reuters spoke of extremely alarming American signals on this topic. In other words, Kyiv is now playing a complex game on several boards at once: securing resources, insuring itself against the weakening of Western support, and simultaneously strengthening positions in the region where Iran has become a common problem.

For Israel, there is a direct, not theoretical lesson in this. While part of the local establishment still thinks of Ukraine as a distant war that lives by its own laws, the Gulf already sees Kyiv as a supplier of a specific military solution. And this, frankly, is a rather painful moment. Because it turns out to be a strange picture: Arab monarchies have integrated Ukrainian experience into their strategy against Iran faster than the state that Iran itself calls the main enemy in the region. This is already an interpretation, but it is based on confirmed deals by Kyiv with Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, as well as reports of the failed Israeli track.

This does not mean that Israel has definitively “refused” Zelensky and even more so consciously breaks contact with Ukraine. There is not yet sufficient public confirmation for such a conclusion. But something else is already visible: against the backdrop of the Iranian war, Ukraine has become noticeably more important for the Middle East than a month ago, and Israel risks finding itself in the position of a country that hesitated too long precisely at the moment when a new regional configuration began to form without it.

If you look at the situation soberly, today the question is no longer whether Netanyahu offended Zelensky. This is too small for such a moment. The question is different: does the Israeli leadership understand that Ukraine is visibly turning into one of the practical participants in the Middle Eastern architecture of containing Iran? And if so, why does Jerusalem still appear in this story not as an initiator, but as a belated observer.