Israeli ambassador to leave Russia early
In a statement on X earlier on Monday, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced Halperin's appointment as deputy director-general for Europe. The ministry did not specify whether she would be recalled from Russia immediately, but Israeli Embassy staff in Moscow told TASS she would remain until at least October.
'The ambassador will end her mission early, due to the fact that she received the position of head of the European Department at the Israeli Foreign Ministry… It is expected that Madam Ambassador will leave in October,' the representative said, adding that a replacement has not yet been named.
Halperin, born in Riga in 1969, lived in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) before immigrating to Israel in 1976. She has served in the Israeli Foreign Ministry since 1993, holding posts in a number of foreign missions. She was appointed Israel's envoy to Russia in November 2024.
Her tenure in Moscow began with controversy after she was summoned by the Russian Foreign Ministry for remarks made in an interview with Kommersant, in which she criticized Moscow's stance on the October 7 Hamas attacks. She condemned Russia for refusing to label Hamas a terrorist group, accusing officials of 'embracing' and 'rolling out the red carpet' for the militant group. Russia's Foreign Ministry called the remarks 'an extremely unfortunate start to a diplomatic mission.'
Since then, however, her stay has been largely uneventful. In a later interview with RBK, Halperin praised the cooperation between Russia and Israel in securing the release of Hamas' hostages.
Russia maintains official ties with both Israel and Palestine and promotes a balanced diplomatic stance, supporting the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. Moscow has condemned both Hamas' 2023 attack on Israel and the civilian toll due to IDF strikes in Gaza.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
44 minutes ago
- Russia Today
Moscow hopes Trump's ‘reasonable' position will influence EU
Moscow hopes the 'reasonable' position on the Ukrainian conflict displayed by US President Donald Trump will have an impact on the stance of the EU, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. Speaking during a press conference in Moscow following talks with his Mozambican counterpart, Maria Manuela Lucas, on Tuesday, Russia's top diplomat expressed hopes the EU will, at some point, show a willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue. 'I really hope that the reasonable approach that the Trump administration showed in this situation after it replaced the Biden administration, which spoke in unison with the unhinged Europeans, that this reasonable approach, which includes a willingness to dialogue and a willingness to listen and hear, will not go unnoticed by the Europeans, despite all the current discussions about the need to arm the Kiev regime again and again and again at the expense of… European taxpayers,' Lavrov stated. While the US president had repeatedly promised to end the hostilities between Moscow and Kiev, he admitted last month, however, that the task had proven to be 'more difficult than people would have any idea.' Thus far, the direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, kick-started by the US administration, have failed to yield any tangible result, focusing primarily on humanitarian issues, including prisoner swaps and the return of the bodies of fallen soldiers. Trump has spoken with Russian President Vladimir Putin multiple times in recent months. He recently criticized the Russian leader for supposedly resisting a settlement and threatened to impose sanctions on Russia and its trade partners unless the Ukraine conflict is ended by autumn. In response, the Kremlin stated it had a calm view of the criticism and expressed its intention to continue the dialogue with Washington. Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov urged the US administration to put pressure on Kiev instead, suggesting that it 'appears that the Ukrainian side takes all statements of support as signals to continue war, not as signals for peace.'
Russia Today
4 hours ago
- Russia Today
The snowflakes of information war: How the New York Times sinned by honesty
It's a platitude that war kills not only people but truth. And as all platitudes, the statement is true, boring, and misleading. Because it omits the real murderers: 'War' does not, actually, kill truth; people kill truth. War just tempts them to do so as few other things – such as job applications or marriage – can. The flipside of that fact is that it is perfectly possible to stick to the truth – or at least make an honest effort to do so – in war, too. That effort is different from 'getting it right.' Think of, for example, George Orwell's 'Homage to Catalonia', his unabashedly personal account of the Spanish Civil War. It was not even meant to be neutral because he sided with – indeed fought for – the underdog Trotskyists; historians, as always, feel they know better about the context and details; and – notwithstanding the sad mainstream sanctification Orwell has suffered posthumously at the hands of conformist mediocrities – 'Homage to Catalonia' is, of course, flawed. Saint Orwell was fallible. Duh. But 'Homage to Catalonia' was an honest effort to find out and tell true things about a war and, importantly, from a war. How do we know that? Most of all by reading it, of course. But apart from that, there is another test: the manner in which it was received when it came out, namely badly. Making no concessions to what his audience might want to read, Orwell had trouble getting 'Homage to Catalonia' published and rightly suspected that was due to its politics, which antagonized everyone: Orwell's own tribe, the Left, no less than the Right. In the end – with the work, in Orwell's words, 'boycotted by the British press' – barely over a third of its modest first edition of 1,500 copies were sold. Homage to Catalonia is a modern classic now. But when it hit the shelves in 1938 and until Orwell died in 1950, it was a dud. That's, in essence, because it was too honest. Without stretching the comparison too far, it is fair to say that recently we have witnessed the same principle at work, when the New York Times published an article by photographer and reporter Nanna Heitmann. Under the title 'A Landscape of Death: What's Left Where Ukraine Invaded Russia', Heitmann's sophisticated account is based on her own six-day visit to the Russian town of Sudzha and its surroundings. Sudzha is located in Kursk Region, which borders Ukraine and where Kiev's forces staged a large-scale incursion that brought great destruction, fierce fighting, and ended in a – predictable – fiasco for Ukraine. As its title indicates, Heitmann's article gives much room to the devastation and suffering wrought by the fighting. She also describes a surprise advance by Russia's military through an empty gas pipeline. Throughout she lets individuals with different experiences and points of view speak, civilians and soldiers, and is careful to record official statements from both sides, Ukraine and Russia. It is obvious to any fair reader that no favors are extended to Russia. Heitmann, for instance, dwells on local criticism of Russian evacuation efforts and the adverse health effects suffered by some of the ethnically Chechen fighters who carried out the pipeline operation. She ends her story by reporting both a local man's hope for reconstruction and the skepticism of a woman who cannot see a future for herself in the region, whether reconstructed or not. The reactions by high-ranking Ukrainian officials and media outlets in Ukraine to Heitmann's article have been hostile. Georgy Tikhy, spokesman for the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, tagged the New York Times in an X post accusing Heitmann of reproducing 'Russian propaganda' and engaging in 'Duranty-level manipulation.' Walter Duranty was an American journalist who is now infamous for spreading Stalinist deceptions. Heitmann has done nothing remotely comparable. Tikhy's wildly unfair comparison reveals his malicious intent, namely to smear Heitmann as badly as he can before the public in general and her employer in particular. Ironically though not surprisingly, it is not Heitmann but the Ukrainian government official who is conducting information war here, and in an especially dirty, personal way. That Heitmann is being targeted by a systematic campaign is obvious from the involvement, as if on cue, of additional attackers: The so-called Center for Countering Disinformation (CCD) under the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine has joined in, also charging Heitmann with manipulation. In particular, the CCD is angry about the fact that Heitmann didn't spend precious words on reiterating the Ukrainian and Western narrative about wicked Russia invading Ukraine. Notwithstanding that every New York Times reader is certain to have had that story hammered into their consciousness for years already not only by that newspaper but every other Western mainstream news outlet, Heitmann, actually writing about a case in which Ukraine – proudly – invaded Russia, is faulted for not ritualistically restating that part of the Western narrative. In the same spirit – and in an especially perverse but also revealing turn – the CCD even went as far as to explicitly impugn Heitmann's 'neutrality.' Being unbiased, so the message from the Ukrainian information warriors, is wrong in and of itself. The Kiev regime, in other words, has a right to expect bias in its favor: mere honesty will not do. This is nothing less than an astonishingly aggressive and open demand for the Western media to be as submissive and streamlined as Ukraine's is. It is testimony to the sense of entitlement that the West has long fostered among its political and media proxies in Kiev. A 'colleague' also hurried to put the boot in, denouncing Heitmann for 'moral equivalency' – translation: honesty we do not like – and gaining access to Sudzha through soldiers from Russia's Chechen Akhmat unit. That, in and of itself, is, we are to understand, an unforgivable sin. Curiously enough, the same logic doesn't seem to apply when Western journalists 'embed' – a telling term – with Western forces conducting wars of aggression, regime change operations, and 'counter-insurgency,' that is, dirty war campaigns of torture and assassination. It also seems to make no difference to Heitmann's denouncer from within the profession – how very Stalinist, really – that her article shows no favor to Akhmat. Regarding its soldiers, too, it is simply factual and calm. Clearly, though, hysterical condemnation is the least Kiev and its Western propagandists feel they have a right to expect. In reality, Heitmann's article is informative, well-written, and free of bias. What is really intriguing about the backlash against her work is not the work – which is simply good, conscientious reporting – but the backlash itself. The high-level and widespread hostile reaction to Heitmann's piece reveals only one thing, and it is not anything about Heitmann and her work: Western and Ukrainian authorities and information warriors have had it far too easy for far too long. Pampered by years of easily feeding their bias to Western publics, while any dissent was repressed and marginalized, they react with allergic fury to even modest signs of unbiased, clear-eyed reporting breaking through into a mainstream outlet. How fragile they must feel.
Russia Today
4 hours ago
- Russia Today
EU using Goebbels-style propaganda to fuel anti-Russia frenzy
The EU has been locked in an anti-Russian 'frenzy,' focusing exclusively on militarization instead of fixing domestic issues that plague the bloc, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. Lavrov made the comments on Tuesday at a press conference in Moscow following talks with his Mozambican counterpart, Maria Manuela Lucas. He condemned the increasingly hostile rhetoric and actions of the EU, claiming that the 'lessons of history' have been 'poorly learned by the current generations of Germans, French, and representatives of other European countries.' 'Europe has gone into a frenzy… They are inciting their peoples in every way possible, instilling in them the spirit of Goebbels' propaganda that Russia is... an existential threat, and that Russia is about to attack Europe, so they have to forget about social problems, about failures in the economy, and about the process of deindustrialization, which is observed in Germany and other European countries,' while focusing exclusively on 'the militarization of Europe,' Lavrov said. Last week, the European Commission unveiled a record-high long-term €2 trillion ($2.33 trillion) draft budget for 2028-34 – a €600 billion increase compared to the 2021-27 budget. The draft envisioned a fivefold increase in defense-related investment, which reached €131 billion, as well as doubling the 'Ukraine facility', a dedicated fund, to €100 billion in loans and grants. The proposed budget has faced criticism from Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who claims that the draft prioritizes Ukraine's potential entry into the bloc above everything else. Around a quarter of the sum would directly benefit Kiev in various ways, Orban said, adding that other areas such as agriculture are subject to cuts. 'This budget would destroy the European Union. I don't think this budget will even survive next year,' Orban said, predicting that the proposal will be significantly watered down before member states consider approving it.
