Defending Israel at the UN: Interview With Ambassador Danny Danon

Defending Israel at the United Nations can be one of the most lonely and thankless jobs in the world. The man charged with that task is Danny Danon, a former Knesset Member from the Likud Party, who has been Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. since 2015. Several days before Rosh Hashanah, Mr. Danon spoke with Hamodia at his office near U.N. headquarters regarding the challenges of representing Israel in a hostile environment, prospects for peace with the Palestinians and the impact of world events on Israel’s security.

Can you describe your background and how you came to be U.N. ambassador?

Well, I was involved with public life since I was in high school. I was the Minister of Science and Technology when Prime Minister Netanyahu offered me this position. Usually, when you get to sit in the government, you don’t leave the government. But I saw it as an opportunity to make a change to serve the Jewish people and the state of Israel, so I didn’t hesitate.

I had to consult with my wife, because it required moving my family from Eretz Yisrael to New York. But once we agreed that it’s an opportunity, I gave the prime minister the green light and we moved. Within two weeks we were in New York.

What’s it like defending Israel at the U.N.?

Very challenging. It’s an ongoing fight. It’s a marathon. So even if you win, you know it’s not going to last, because you’re going to wake up the next morning and have another challenge, another resolution, another report against Israel. So you need the stamina to be able to wake up every day and continue to fight. I compare it to the service of the IDF, when they have to patrol the border every day. It’s very routine, very hard, sometimes boring, but you are defending the borders of Israel. What we are doing here is a mission. We are a small team, but every morning we’re doing our own patrols, our checkpoints, and protecting the front line of Israel here in the U.N.

Please describe some specific activities that you’re involved in, or a particular battle or two, so that we can understand some of the things you go through there.

There are a lot of activities around Israel at the U.N. Usually it’s hostile. It can be a resolution. So when there is a resolution against Israel, we will speak with our allies. We try to block the resolution. And then if it comes to a vote, we will try to convince as many member states as possible to oppose the resolution or to abstain. And even if we know that we’ll lose the vote, we will argue with many countries, and I will urge them to join the “moral majority.” This “majority” will be in the minority. But, at least, I tell them, “Read the resolution. Look at the language. Where do you want to be? Do you want your country to support this language against Israel, or do you want to be on the other side?”

And we have seen a change. We have seen more and more countries joining us. We were even able to pass a resolution condemning Hamas last June, which was a great victory, because in the General Assembly I cannot recall the last time we got the plurality of the member states — 62 against 58 voted to condemn Hamas. We worked very closely with U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley on this resolution. And I’m optimistic.

People read a lot about these resolutions in the Security Council or General Assembly. Practically speaking, what effect, if any, do these resolutions have on Israel?

There is a difference. With the General Assembly, it’s a declaration. But it also means something: It doesn’t change the reality, but it creates the narrative, it creates the atmosphere. So today the Palestinians invest a lot of energy in those resolutions. Instead of negotiating with us, they prefer empty speeches and empty resolutions. They want to create the atmosphere, but the U.N. or the international community supports their cause, and they’re against Israeli policy.

The Security Council is more important, because you can have binding resolutions in the Security Council. You can have sanctions in some cases. There we rely on the support of the U.S., on the veto of the U.S., for which we are grateful.

Unfortunately, in December 2016, the previous administration decided once not to support Israel. It was a very low moment for me personally, being in the room by myself where all of the Security Council members voted for the resolution and the U.S. abstained. I told them that we will overcome, we will prevail.

Today we are in a different situation, thanks to the new approach of the Trump administration. When Ambassador Haley came, she sat where you are sitting now and she told me that it will never happen during her term in the U.N. So today we are active, but we know that such a resolution will not pass in the Security Council again.

Paraguay just announced that it is moving its embassy back to Tel Aviv. The previous president, Horacio Cartes, moved it to Yerushalayim, but the new president, Mario Abdo Benitez, is moving it back to Tel Aviv. And Israel, I believe, just announced that it is pulling its embassy from Paraguay.

The prime minister called our ambassador in Paraguay for consultation to Jerusalem.

We are not happy with Paraguay’s decision.

Only four months ago, I believe, they moved their embassy to Jerusalem. They had elections there. They have a new president now, probably a new minister of foreign affairs, so they decided to change their policy. We are disappointed with that, but I can tell you that I work quietly to convince more countries to move their embassies to Jerusalem.

Thus far, besides Paraguay, Guatemala moved its embassy to Jerusalem. Honduras, Romania and the Czech Republic have indicated that they may be willing to move their embassies as well. What is happening on those fronts, and are there any other countries that you think may be imminently moving?

Yes. I wouldn’t name names now, but yes, we are working quietly with a few countries about this issue.

I think that in 20 years people will laugh at it: Why was it a big issue to move the embassy? What is the difference? People understand that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, period. So it will not be such a huge thing like it is today. And hopefully, in the near future, we’ll see more countries joining the U.S.

Without naming names, there are some that you think are close to announcing?

Yes.

Any Security Council countries?

You will not see the major countries moving their embassies. So at the beginning it will be small countries, and eventually we will get the bigger ones.

Do you think this is due to the large Arab populations in countries such as England and France?

Well, you know, when you look at the policy of some of the European countries, I’m sure there’s an impact. Take Sweden, for example: They sit on the Security Council, and their policy is very hostile toward Israel. And you ask yourself, why? What happened between Sweden and Israel? And I’m sure that you’ll find that the fact that they have a large Muslim population affects the policy of this country.

And recently, especially since the Syrian Civil War, there’s been an even larger influx of Muslims into Europe. Do you think this negatively affects Israel in the sense that the greater the Muslim population in these European countries, the more these countries will adopt anti-Israel policies?

I think that they have a problem. They face a lot of issues with those Muslim immigrants, some radical forces. And some of them are naïve enough to believe that if they support the Palestinians, they will not have issues with the radicals in their own countries. It will not work. Even after we … resolve our disputes with the Palestinians, they will still have to face the issues with the radical Muslims in their countries. But for them it’s easier to blame Israel, to attack Israel, viciously sometimes, rather than to deal with their own internal problems.

The Syrian civil war is also having a more direct effect on Israel. What are some of the impacts on Israel of this war so close to its border?

Well, first, from a humanitarian point of view, when we look at the numbers of victims and wounded people, it’s devastating. So we are not involved, but we provide some humanitarian support to people who live next to our border. At the same time, we are very worried about the presence of Iran in Syria. They have a very clear agenda to seize control of Syria the same way they did in Lebanon. And we have a very clear policy not to allow it to happen.

So we speak with our friends in Washington, with our friends in Moscow, and we send a very clear message that we will not allow the Iranians to bring another front next to our border in the Golan Heights.

You said, “Our friends in Moscow.” Is Russia an ally of Israel?

You cannot compare our relationship with the U.S. and our relationship with Russia, for sure.

Russia is a friend of Iran.

First of all, our connection with the U.S. is on a different level. We have to acknowledge it, and we are grateful for it.

I will say that we work with other countries in the region, including Russia. We deliver a very clear message about our interests. They have their own interests. Not always do we see eye-to-eye, but in general, I think when we speak about Syria, I think that even in Russia today people understand that leaving the Iranians there will not be helpful for stability — will not be helpful for the reconstruction of Syria — and we hope that they will be very determined on this issue.

If there could be an end brought to the Syrian civil war with Assad staying in power, can Israel live with that?

We are not in a position to decide the outcome of the civil war. We haven’t taken sides at any time during the war. We will protect our interests. No matter who will be there in Damascus, we will protect our interests.

You referred to the humanitarian crisis in Syria. Israel helped the White Helmets to escape and provided humanitarian aid to Syrian refugees in the Golan. Israel also sent divers to Thailand to assist in the rescue of a soccer team stuck in a cave. Israel is involved in assisting with crises all over the world. Do you see this having any impact at all on the way the enemies of Israel view her? Or is a hater always going to be a hater?

Well, you have a lot of countries who are neither haters nor supporters. The majority of countries are … somewhere in the middle. I think it’s affecting those countries. And I think it’s very important.

We are doing a lot. We believe in tikkun olam and we are very proud of it, but I believe we can do more. We can do more in terms of technology innovation, sharing our strengths and capabilities with developing countries. We share agriculture, energy and security. So we are doing that, and that’s what I hear from the ambassadors. They care about supporting their needs. So I think we are doing a lot, we can do more, and I believe that we will do more in this issue.

Let’s turn to the peace process. Trump Administration officials Jared Kushner, Jason Greenblatt and Ambassador David Friedman are in the middle of crafting a deal. In your view, what would an ideal peace plan look like, if one can ever be achieved?

Well, I think we need to go a step earlier: Before speaking about the deal or the agreement, we need to identify if we have a viable partner. I think that is the main challenge today. So we are grateful for the support … by the American team. We will look at every proposal as it is presented to us, especially when it’s coming from the U.S. — unlike the Palestinians, who are saying openly that they don’t want to look at it. They don’t want to meet with the president. You should look at the way they speak to Ambassador Haley at the Security Council. It’s shameful.

So, we respect those efforts, but we are worried that when we don’t have a partner on the other side, even if the plan will be a great one — and I don’t know the content of the plan — it will not go anywhere when you have the Palestinians saying that they won’t even consider looking at the plan.

Is this plan being crafted only by the Americans, and will be presented to Israel and the Palestinians once it’s completed? Or are Israel and the Palestinians involved in the discussions before the plan is presented publicly?

Well, there are a lot of talks about the issues. They gather information, they speak with people who were involved in the policy in the past.

Both sides?

Yes.

But basically they will craft their plan and present it. It will not be our plan. I’m sure there will be aspects that we will like, and I’m sure there will be aspects that we will not like, and perhaps we will not even agree to it. But we don’t know. We will have to wait and see when and if it is presented.

The Trump administration has been undoing some of the Obama administration policies that many saw as antagonistic toward Israel. In your experience, what has been the difference between the two administrations’ approaches toward Israel?

First of all, we had the support of the U.S. in the past also. I worked with the previous administration. We are bipartisan. We have friends from both parties, and it will continue to be that way.

Having said that, I think the mistake that President Obama made in abandoning Israel in the Security Council is that nobody will remember the achievements and the good things we did together with his administration; people will remember this vote.

And that’s what I told then-U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power before and after the vote: that regardless of everything they did and the work we did together, once you abandon Israel in a crucial vote, that will be the legacy of the administration. And that’s exactly what happened.

With the Trump administration, there’s a different approach. You hear them supporting Israel publicly, and I think it actually makes the U.S. stronger. I think people today at the U.N. support the U.S. and appreciate the U.S. because of the approach of Ambassador Haley at the U.N., and because of the decision of President Trump to move the embassy.

For us, it was an amazing decision, and we are grateful for that. But I think it was also important for the U.S. I think more countries today in our region and around the world respect the president and respect the U.S. because it took that step. So, we think it goes in the right direction, and it’s also a reality check for the Palestinians: They can wait, they can refuse again, but it will not bring them to a better place.

What is U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres’s relationship with, and stance toward, Israel?

Secretary-General Guterres was the prime minister of Portugal. He is very knowledgeable about Jewish history, about anti-Semitism, and the Inquisition in Spain and Portugal.

We don’t agree with everything that he is doing or saying all the time, but I have an open door, so we discuss a lot of things. We can have a dialogue, and I think it’s important for us that we have that.

Tomorrow we are having a tashlich ceremony; he will be there also. It’s also important to us that he’s involved, and he respects the events that we do. I’m a strong supporter of soft diplomacy, which I developed at the U.N., in which we bring Jewish tradition and Israeli innovation into the heart of the U.N. And he participates in many of those events.

Can you describe some of these events?

Sure.

The tashlich ceremony we are having tomorrow is a good example. The ambassadors live in New York, which is almost a Jewish city. They hear a lot about Jewish life. So when we have Jewish events, they are interested. We had a mock Seder at the U.N. at which the ambassadors joined us. All of those activities get them closer to Israel.

And the most effective tool is tours to Israel, where I take ambassadors to Israel for a week, to go to the Old City, to the City of David, all of those things. I feel the change when they come back.

There are three U.N. entities that President Trump has either cut funding to or withdrawn from: UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), the Human Rights Council, and UNRWA (the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East).

The U.S. told them that they have to change their behavior. It doesn’t make any sense that those organizations are focused only on Israel. Take the Human Rights Council, for example: There are so many violations around the world, and they’ll have a specific agenda item only about Israel. It doesn’t make any sense.

Once the U.S. understood that this is not going to change, the U.S. pulled out from the Human Rights Council, from UNESCO, and cut funding to UNRWA. I think it is the right approach. You want to be in the room if you can influence, but if you have no influence, and you’re funding those organizations, it doesn’t make any sense. If in the future those organizations will change their attitude or their behavior, I think the U.S. can always come back, and the same goes for Israel.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has called Iran the greatest threat to Israel today. But has the Iranian threat drawn Israel closer to the Sunni Muslim countries, who also feel threatened by Iran? In that way, has the Iranian threat helped Israel’s security, by bringing it closer to countries like Saudi Arabia?

Yes and no.

Yes, it brought us closer. We have a lot of quiet dialogue and cooperation with many of the moderate Arab countries because of the threat of Iran and because it supports terrorism in the region.

But if you had asked me 20 years ago, if I would have had the opportunity to choose, I would choose that the Iranians would not go where they are going with their ballistic-missile test and the nuclear capabilities, and we would find other ways to build bridges to those countries.

Without naming any names, have there been any other countries, any other ambassadors of Muslim countries in the Middle East or Africa, that told you quietly that they’d be happy to have better relations with Israel, but that there’s pressure from the larger Muslim world that they can’t be friends with Israel?

Sure, we have a lot of private conversations and dialogue. And I think more and more, we see more countries publicly supporting Israel and having dialogue with Israel. So, with Africa it has changed already. It’s a done deal.

With the Arab countries, we’re also working on that. But everybody knows that we work with many countries with whom we do not have diplomatic relations. And when you look at numbers, out of the 193 member-states in the U.N., we have diplomatic relations with more than 160 countries. We do have some kind of dialogue with most of the others. There are only a few countries with which we have no dialogue at all.

Do you think any of the Arab countries would establish official relations with Israel before a peace agreement was reached with the Palestinians?

It depends. You would need somebody strong like Sadat to be brave enough to step forward, and then you’ll see many others following him.

In a few days will be the 25th anniversary of the signing of the Oslo Accords. Looking back over the past two and a half decades, Oslo has been a — fill in the blank.

A mistake. It was a mistake, and we see the results today. It brings us to the reality today that we are eager to move forward, but we need to find a partner. It is a mistake to sign or to move forward with someone who is not a real partner.

The United Nations General Assembly will be held later this month. There’s all kinds of talk of what may or may not happen there with North Korea. Is Israel paying close attention to the outcome of nuclear talks between North Korea, South Korea and the United States? Will that have a big effect on Israel’s security?

Well, we are paying close attention. In the past, there was cooperation between North Korea and Syria and other regimes in the region. They transferred technology to the region … it’s problematic. But on this issue, per se, we are not involved. We have enough domestic issues in our neighborhood.

Any final thoughts?

To wish shanah tovah, chatimah tovah, to all Am Yisrael!