Statements about Belarusan political prisoners made by Israeli envoy rather show his cynical position than the position of Israel.

Recent statements made by Yosef Shagal, Israel’s Ambassador to Belarus, caused a wave of disapproval from the democratically oriented part of Belarusan society. It’s not the first statement of that kind made by the diplomat.

Is that the official stance of Israel that the envoy voiced? Should Belarusans expect apologies from Israeli government? And why is democratic Israel on friendly terms with authoritarian Lukashenka?

Andrei Yahorau, director of the Centre for European Transformation, gave his answers to the EuroBelarus Information Service.

— Yosef Shagal, Israel’s Ambassador to Belarus, referred to Belarusan political prisoners as to criminals, saying that he is “not denying they are not political prisoners: it depends on the light we view them. In accordance with their country's criminal code, they are criminals. From the point of view of Poland or the EU, they are political prisoners”. He summed up his statement, pointing that they “are serving their terms as convicted under a criminal article, not a political one. All of them. For attacking the parliament and throwing stones.” Jerusalem didn’t disclaim the words of its envoy; thus, can we take it as an official viewpoint of Israel?

— I don’t think that this is an official viewpoint of the country, as being a democratic country Israel can’t adhere to the assessments of its envoy towards Belarusan political prisoners. Though it is very cynical of Mr. Shagal to make such statements.

— Does an Israeli envoy have a right to voice such kind of opinion in regard to such a delicate issue? Alaksandr Fiaduta, the ex-coordinator of the campaign “Tell the Truth! said that Israeli government embodied by its Prime-Minister should either support his envoy or denounce him.

— I cannot but agree with Fiaduta, as in such situations the differentiation between the notions of law and the legislation of the state becomes visible. All dictatorial states are based on the legislations, which they introduce. And that doesn’t necessarily mean that such legislation is concordant with the law and is designed to observe human rights laws.

We should demand Israel to formulate clear stance in relation to Belarusan political prisoners. However, Israeli will hardly come up with such a stance; it is more likely to say that this is the personal opinion of its envoy in order to smooth the conflict.

— Israeli envoy has made an undiplomatic statement in relation to Poland and accused it of organizing and exercising international pressure on the Belarusan regime. It cannot be really called a coincidence.

— I don’t think that such statements reflect the official stance of Israel, as they fall out of Israeli political line in relation to Poland. Both statements rather show the cynical position of the envoy than the position of Israel.

— Former Israel's Ambassador to Belarus Ze’ev Ben Aryeh is sentenced to four months of communal services for divulging of a state secret and attempts to impede the course of investigation in regard with the Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. Together with the current Israel’s Ambassador to Belarus, he is an active supporter of the Belarusan regime. Does Israeli state politics in relation to Belarus presuppose the advocacy of the regime on the international arena? Or is it the result of the Belarusan foreign politics, which is actively recruiting supporters of the regime throughout the world?

— Israel does not advocate Belarusan regime on the international arena; its policy is aimed at surviving. Israel tries to befriend each country that is loyal to it and its policy in the Middle East and doesn’t want to fight with anyone. Israeli establishes relations with the people who hold power in each specific country. That is why its relations with the authoritarian countries, including Belarus, are pragmatic. From the point of view of the civil society we can condemn such policy, and we should make efforts in this direction.

— What is specific about Belarus-Israel relations? There is only one phrase that mentions “constructive and productive character” of work between the Foreign Ministries of Belarus and Israel, South Africa, Iraq, SAR, Nigeria in an overview for 2013; and flow of goods made only $130 mln.

— Belarus-Israel relations cannot be characterized with more details: the dialog is going on, bilateral contacts are taking place regularly; but nothing significant in these bilateral relations is going on.

— Summing up the results of the Belarus’ foreign policy for 2013, our Foreign Ministry claims there is “certain positive movement towards normalization and development of relations with the EU” as well as “first signs of warmer bilateral cooperation” with the USA. Have you ever seen these signs?

— Speaking about the US I see no signs of “warmer bilateral cooperation”. As to the European Union, the dialog about visa simplification has a definite positive effect on Belarus-EU relations. Technically, the agreements on visa simplification and readmission are ready to be signed; but up to this moment there was no political will to sign them. If both the sides demonstrate political will, then I share the opinion of Maira Mora, the head of the European Union’s Delegation to Belarus, and believe that the agreements can be signed before the end of 2014.

However, we cannot skip the fact that Belarus-EU cooperation is much dependent on the state of political relations. Any escalation of political issues can stop the dialog at any stage.