ASEAN Beat | Diplomacy | Southeast Asia

Singapore’s Israel Tightrope

The city-state’s ties with Israel have been built on a history that very few other Asian countries can boast. But Singapore can still say “no.”

When Singapore gained independence in 1965, it had no army, few resources, and limited room for error. Other countries turned down its requests for military assistance. Israel did not. That history still has relevance as Singapore’s leaders have repeatedly recognized the contribution Israel made at a time when its existence was in jeopardy.

Over the decades, the relationship expanded from the original defense collaboration to a broader relationship in technology, cybersecurity, research and the life sciences. In 2025, however, Singapore took an unprecedented step: four Israelis faced financial sanctions and travel bans for “egregious acts of extremist violence” against Palestinians in the West Bank, according to the Foreign Ministry.

That decision did not amount to a rupture with Israel, nor did it wipe away the historical appreciation that’s always been a factor in the relationship. Instead, Singapore is communicating that friendship is not synonymous with remaining silent when Israeli actions are at odds with Singapore’s expressed positions on international law and a two-state solution.

Following Singapore’s independence from Malaysia in 1965, the government of Lee Kuan Yew sought assistance from several nations in the development of its military. Israel responded by surveying the island with its advisers and structuring a master plan for building up the Singapore Armed Forces from scratch, namely the “Brown Book.” Singapore’s national service system was also heavily inspired by the Israeli model. This assistance was crucial to the fledgling city-state, as it came at a time when Singapore was at existential risk.

However, for decades, Singapore’s relationship with Israel was a tightly guarded secret. Overt defense cooperation with Israel was a sensitive subject in Southeast Asia, especially the Muslim world, and Singapore knew that such a move could cause tensions with its neighbors. The initial relationship was therefore not explicitly advertised, and political restraint was needed as well as strategic skill. Singaporean officials even referred to the Israeli military advisers who arrived to help build the Singapore Armed Forces by the code name “the Mexicans.”

That tension never went away, although it took a different shape over the decades. In 2025, Singapore’s sanctions on four Israelis once again called attention to the limits of the relationship. The four targeted had been connected to settler violence in the West Bank. Singapore’s stance was unambiguous: Israeli settlements are a violation of international law; their expansion is making a two-state solution more difficult; and acts of settler violence must be contained, with the perpetrators held accountable.

Beyond the sanctions, Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan said that the recognition of a Palestinian state was a question of “when, not if,” while outlining conditions for a Palestinian government, including its acceptance of Israel’s right to exist and rejection of terrorism. Singapore sought to  back both Israel’s survival and statehood for the Palestinians, while condemning settler violence and supporting a negotiated two-state solution. Together, these positions embody Singapore’s approach to diplomacy as a small nation.

International law is not an abstract preference for Singapore. A system where a larger or more powerful state can act without compunction is always dangerous for a small state. In February 2026, Balakrishnan made that argument in Parliament, saying, “On some issues, we will have to say ‘no’ and to do so courteously, respectfully, and constructively, but nevertheless to stand firm and say ‘no.’ This is not about choosing sides, but about upholding principles and........

© The Diplomat