Former public security minister Gilad Erdan served as Israel's ambassador to Washington for 10 months. At the same time, he also served as Israel's ambassador at the United Nations in New York – a role he still holds. Taking on both roles brings with it complexities and ramifications.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
Erdan left for the United States in the summer of 2020 after being appointed by the Netanyahu-Gantz government. His agreement with former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was that as long as the latter remained prime minister, Erdan would hold on to the position of ambassador in Washington. As a senior minister in the government, Erdan's departure was fraught with political danger. He knew that the position in Washington, which is the more important of the two ambassadorships, could be short-lived, as indeed turned out to be the case.
But Erdan is someone who aims high, and if he decides to challenge Netanyahu for the leadership of Likud, and he will, he will want to present to the party members not just with his decade of his ministerial experience, but also substantial diplomatic experience. And while his term in Washington ended quickly, it included a number of significant milestones: The transition from the Trump administration to the administration of Joe Biden; the formation of a new government in Israel, the first after 12 years not led by Netanyahu; and a development that will influence the lives of all Israelis – a visa waiver for Israelis visiting the United States. Erdan made a significant contribution to the last of these milestones.
We speak by phone as he makes his way from New York to Washington to hand over to his successor, Israel's new ambassador to the US, Mike Herzog. While holding down both jobs, Erdan made the four-hour trip from New York to Washington at least twice a week. It wasn't easy, he admits.
"The first year was extremely difficult, but it was my family that paid the heaviest price. It's never easy to uproot to another country with four children, but our first year in New York was the most difficult we experienced as a family. We arrived in August 2020 at the height of the COVID pandemic, before there were vaccines.
"My kids went to school just two days a week, and were at home for the rest of the time in a new country. People weren't inviting guests over, so it was very difficult to make social connections. It was very challenging. But now that New York has opened up, I go watch [Knicks player] A'mare Stoudemire with my son, and when we're in Washington, we go to see [Wizards player] Danny Avdija. Life has become much easier."
Q: Let's start with life itself, as they say. When do you think Israelis will get a visa waiver?
"At the moment the process is very much dependent on the efforts of [US] governmental bodies. The political will of the administration has already been expressed at the highest levels by President Biden and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas. By the way, six years ago, when I was public security minister and Mayorkas was deputy secretary of Homeland Security, he spoke of his desire to give Israelis a visa waiver. So he is very committed.
"When I took up my position, I gathered the staff at the embassy and made the visa waiver issue one of my top priorities. There was a lot of skepticism about it because the issue has been on the table for many years without us managing to solve it. In my conversations with members of Congress and representatives of the administration, I emphasized the importance of the decision to relations between the two countries. I explained that Israeli veterans should be treated differently as people of the same age elsewhere in the world. [Because of the "post-army trip" that is unique to Israel. A.K.] That was the main obstacle.
"From the moment the personnel authorizing visas in Jerusalem are instructed not to reject visa applications from young people just released from the army, the rejection rate will drop and the countdown to a waiver will begin. The remaining issues are primarily technical: First of all, the police and the Justice Ministry need to make an effort to connect the criminal records system of both countries. If this happens, in the second half of 2022 or at the beginning of 2023, a waiver will be issued. I don't want to celebrate prematurely, but I'm certainly optimistic. It will make things much easier for Israeli citizens after decades in which they've had to stand in line to receive visas, and pay money and go through a process that can be humiliating because they're treated as if they're suspects. It will be a historic moment in bilateral ties, and I'm very proud to have taken a part in it."
Q: Will the visa waiver come at a cost, perhaps Israel agreeing to a consulate in Jerusalem for the Palestinians?
"I am not aware of any price Israel has been required to pay and I don't believe one exists. Look, this is also an American interest from the perspective of both tourism and business. Israel is the United States' closest ally in the Middle East, and one of its closest allies in the world. We cooperate on intelligence and other issues; the administration, including Democratic members of Congress, are very pleased with that cooperation.
"In the near future, Iron Dome may protect American soldiers in Iraq and other places. Countries that are not as close to the United States are included in the Visa Waiver Program. Israel should have been a part of it a long time ago."
Q: Has the administration been persuaded to give up the idea of a consulate for the Palestinians in Jerusalem?
"My impression is that the administration has yet to give up on this idea. The issue was raised in almost every meeting I had with representatives of the administration. They repeatedly explained that the president committed to going ahead with this. We explain the difficulties it will create for us. First and foremost, that sovereignty in Jerusalem is one of our most basic values. Various propositions were made to solve the dispute, but at the moment a resolution has yet to be reached. Even within the family there can be disputes, but that doesn't mean they have to cast a shadow over our relations."
In-depth talks on an American Plan B for Iran
Q: You have been involved for almost a year in the dialogue between Israel and the US on the Iranian issue. Do the Americans not understand that Iran is playing them and racing toward the bomb?
"The Israeli perception is that Iran is continuing to progress with its nuclear program and wishes to be a nuclear threshold state, while waiting for a convenient opportunity to break out. I think there is disagreement between Israel and the US and others in the West over this analysis. This difference of opinion touches on the question of what is the most efficient way to stop Iran, and that is a point on which there is a deep dispute.
"We believe that only if Iran sees a credible and significant military threat is there a chance that threat won't have to carried out, and then, perhaps, a stronger and broader agreement with a longer scope can be reached. On the other hand, the Americans believe that the first step should be to bring the international community on board and that this should be done through a return to the old agreement, a step that we see as a mistake.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
"The positive side is that on both counts, we see the Americans sobering up and they have accepted our position. If a year ago, they thought there was an 80% chance of a return to the agreement, today they put it at perhaps 20%. The second point is that to all intents and purposes, the current administration accepts Israel's position from 2015 that the original nuclear agreement was not a good one. The team managing the Iran file is the same team that was working on it in 2015.
"They say that the JCPOA needs to be improved. When they declare that there is a need to reach an agreement with Iran that is longer, broader, stronger that is an admission that the agreement signed back then was not enough. If an extension of the term of the agreement is required, and tighter enforcement mechanisms are required, and the issues covered by the agreement need to be broader, that means it was not good enough. There is no other way to explain it. Perhaps in 2021 they understand things that they didn't understand in 2015. But it doesn't really matter."
Q: If that's the case, what do they plan to do in the event that there is no agreement? What's Plan B?
"I don't want to talk on their behalf. But we are holding in-depth talks with them."
More countries could join the Abraham Accords
Q: Did Israel make a commitment to work in full cooperation with the United States, or not to operate unilaterally, when it comes to Iran?
"For many years, it has been common practice whenever there been an operation that concerns regions in which the United States has an interest, for Israel to try and notify them in advance. From what I was exposed to in my time as ambassador, I am not aware of any condition that requires Israel to restrict itself."
Q: When this administration started out, it had low expectations on the Palestinian issue. In your opinion, is this something that is about to change? Can we expect a political process or pressure on Israel to make withdrawals?
"I don't believe this is what will happen. There are subjects on which we don't see eye to eye, like construction in Judea and Samaria and aid to UNRWA without it being conditioned on reforms against [Palestinian] incitement. But as far as an agreement is concerned, from President Biden's first day in office, the talk from the American side has only been about promoting economic projects to improve quality of life of the Palestinians. They also understand the issue of Hamas in Gaza and the danger that if elections are held in Judea and Samaria, Hamas will win.
Q: Do you think we'll see more countries join the Abraham Accords? Are their contacts that are about to mature into success?
"The Abraham Accords are an excellent example of policy that the administration has adopted [from the previous administration] despite the political polarization in the United States. They had reservations about them and came under fire in Congress, but despite that the administration has gone forward and has not put the Abraham Accords in danger. And it has not gone back on the remunerations given by the Trump administration.
"With time, they stepped up their efforts to bring in more countries, to leverage their influence on significant Muslim states that do not have ties with Israel in order to reach peace agreements. Higher echelons are now dealing with the issue and I hope that we will see the results within a few months. There is a chance. In contrast to the beginning of its term, the administration is now much more deeply invested in this, at the highest levels.
Q: What about China? Do you see this as a matter of dispute between Israel and the US administration?
"The issue of China has indeed become a very complex one from Israel's perspective. China is an economic partner, a desired and legitimate economic partner that offers cheap and fast work. On top of that, there aren't many companies, including American companies, that can compete for big construction projects in Israel. On the other hand, there is bipartisan agreement in the United States that China is a strategic threat and a danger to the United States. There is also a problem of human rights. It's very important to the administration that its allies including Israel make a clear choice. One of the most significant challenges for Ambassador Herzog and the government will be how to navigate this issue. It's clear to everyone that the US is our top priority. On the other hand, we're not an empire that can just give up on ties with an economic power like China.
'Biden loves Israel with all his heart'
Erdan took up the post of ambassador in Washington on Jan. 20, 2021, the same day that the Biden administation came into power after four years of a pro-Israel Trump administration. When asked how he would characterize the current administration's attitude toward Israel, Erdan says: "The Biden administration said straight-up that the Middle East is not top of its agenda … But we want the United States to be active in the Middle East, and on that issue, I've made great efforts to get the Middle East higher up on the administration's attention.
"Many of the steps we took, including meetings with Democratic congresspeople, opinion shapers within the party, were made to retain bipartisan support, which is a strategic asset. In that context, we face a significant challenge among minorities and the young generation. President Biden may have a different approach to that of the Trump administration, but he loves Israel with all his heart. In meetings with him I heard him talk at length about what he heard from his father growing up about ties with Israel. Does that mean that we see everything eye to eye? Not really. There are many differences in our worldviews."
Q: You spoke about bipartisan support. Are the anti-Israel streams in the Democratic Party getting stronger? Only recently, an African-American pro-Israel Democrat was elected as mayor of New York, and the same has happened elsewhere.
"Support for Israel among the Democrats is something we have to work hard at. The mainstream within the party was and remains pro- Israel. We saw that, for example, in the vote on Iron Dome, but that doesn't mean we can rest on our laurels. There are streams that are a cause for concern. The problematic group of members of Congress has grown from four to 12. They have an influence on minorities and on the young.
"Unfortunately, the Palestinians have joined forces with the Black Lives Matter movement as if the African-American and the Palestinian experiences are the same story. The two have nothing to do with each other. Because of this, my first trip as ambassador to the US was to the US South to get to know the story of the African-American community.
Q: It isn't just the administration that has changed; there is also a new government in Israel. You are a veteran political player who was a member of a party that is a rival of the current coalition, and it is obvious that you will return to the political arena. How is it possible to represent a government that your party opposes?
"Because of the complexity of the situation that emerged, I decided to not to continue in Washington and I informed Prime Minister Bennett of my decision, at my initiative. The ambassadorship to Washington is a political appointment and requires personal trust with the prime minister and the foreign minister.
"I understood that this could create problems and therefore we agreed that I would end my role as soon as possible. At the United Nations, on the other hand, there is no real change in the diplomatic context. Defending Israel is something that is more general. As ambassador at the United Nations, I don't represent each cabinet minister or each MK. I with agreed-upon major issues, and of course I do so in coordination [with the government]."
Q: Nevertheless, you are a political figure who works with people that were and perhaps will be political rivals. Doesn't that get in the way?
"We have a correct working relationship. True, I was an elected official and a politician, but I made a conscious decision to take a diplomatic and international path for a certain time. I act in a statesmanlike way. My experience has also taught me that there is no point in all sort of speculations because the future can take us in a thousand directions. I worked in coordination with the Foreign Minister to lobby to keep as many countries as possible from taking part in the Durban Conference. And if the prime minister needs to address the United Nations, my view is that the citizens of Israel should want his speech to be as persuasive as possible. My role is to represent the good of the country. At the moment, I feelI have the ability to defend the positions of Israel. If ideological differences emerge, I'll reconsider whether or not to stay on."
Q: What are your future political plans? Will you return to Israel to run in the Likud party primaries?
"I chose to serve Israel in international arena. When I left, I took into consideration all the implications, including the political risks. But today, I'm focused only on defending Israel at the United Nations, in presenting Israel's beautiful face. As for the future, I don't know."
Q: We have already discussed how you held the two roles of ambassador at the United Nations and in Washington. You faced criticism for this. In retrospect, was it the right thing to do to take on both roles?
"Unequivocally, yes. I wouldn't say it would always be the right thing. But one has to look at the circumstances and the person who was charged with doing so. The most important asset we have at the United Nations is American support, and this administration has put at the top of its agenda a number of issues that are directly connected to the goings on at the United Nations.
"My experience as someone who has operated on both these fronts was of great help to me, including during Operation Guardian of the Walls. At the beginning of my tenure, when I had to build up a relationship with the new administration, I discussed with them topics that I had discussed with the American ambassador at the United Nations and her representatives. Perhaps it would have been more difficult for someone else, but I had a familiarity with the subjects from my experience as both a minister and a cabinet member for over a decade."
