Does Iran really want to atomize Israel? Is Israel stronger than Iran? High-level security expert explains – Israel News

One of the days I met Eran Etzion, an attack in Syria, attributed to Israel, reportedly killed more than 50 pro-Iranian militiamen. The goal was on the border between Syria and Iraq, further and deeper than previous attacks attributed to Israel. For the first time in our talks, which took place during the second half of June, Etzion, former head of political planning at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and former deputy head of the National Security Council, and one of the experts Israeli a variety of tasks, expressed concern.

The views of Etzion represent a striking and resolute break with the conventional wisdom of the Israeli diplomatic and security community, whose members generally argue that the nuclear deal signed by President Barack Obama with the Iran was a bad deal. claims from all platforms that the brutal abandonment of President Donald Trump is likely to draw Iran closer to a nuclear bomb and has the potential to plunge the region into the war. But this is not where the near and substantial threat lies, he says.

"The most unstable place at the present time is Syria, where we are already in a kind of low intensity war, which can certainly deteriorate further, because what separates us from this situation is the Russians. [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu constantly insists that our goal is to remove Iranians from all over Syria, and everyone is echoing this. This goal is simply not in our hands. power, and the insistence on this point is likely to generate a war in a very unstable environment, involving Iranians, pro-Iranian militias and Hezbollah, Turkey also ingesting it.The final solution will be formulated by the Russians, who boast of being the actor who talks to everyone, but who tell a story to the Iranians and another to the Israelis.The only sure thing is that the United States withdraws its forces Something dramatic is going on in Syria: Pou r the first time, there is direct military friction between Israel and Iran. There is now a higher probability than ever of deteriorating into an open war, which could take all kinds of different forms. "

What does it mean?

"This means that if Hezbollah enters the countryside, the destruction and devastation that will be inflicted on Tel Aviv and other urban centers in Israel will be on a scale that we have not seen. never seen before, and we have no way to stop it.We have a way to answer, but I do not know exactly who will console if Beirut is destroyed in the wake of the destruction of Tel Aviv And if a war between Israel and Hezbollah is something we have not experienced yet, then a direct war between Israel and Iran is something I do not want to imagine, but unfortunately, in the positions I held I had to imagine.The useful reference point is the Iran-Iraq war: eight years and one million people killed. "

Is Israel not stronger than Iran?

"The question is how you measure the force.There is a key term called" strategic depth ", used by the Iranians not so long ago, precisely in the context of this friction. A senior Iranian official said that Israel should be careful because it has no strategic depth.You must really go to the basics and look at geography, demographics and history.Israel has a military power, but Iran has a huge geography, a population of 80 million and a history that goes back thousands of years.This is a civilization.A former ambbadador of Canada in Israel spoke about a meeting between a senior official of the Canadian Department of International Affairs [its foreign ministry] and the Iranian ambbadador to Canada. The Iranian ambbadador enters, throws a shot at Eye on the carpet in the room and said, "Iran is a Persian carpet that has been woven for 5,000 years; Canada is a speck of dust on this carpet.

"There is something megalomaniac about the Iranians' self-perception, and there is a sense of historical privation.They feel that now, with weak Arabs and the Middle East breaking, they have the opportunity to restore their position.When they plan their strategic moves, their plans extend to Gibraltar.Therefore it is not by chance that until now we have taken care not to interfere directly with Iran, and the smart policy is to continue to pay attention.I am concerned about what is happening now, because I see a slowdown in this regard. "

Overall, the Israeli public does not seem to share your ratings. Many here think that Israel is almighty and nothing will happen.

"I totally disagree, if you remember, there was a day when Netanyahu announced a special meeting of the security cabinet [which turned out to be when he presented intelligence material seized in Iran] .In the hours that pbaded between this announcement and the statement, whose import was "Relax, it's nothing", the anxiety and the amount of rumors circulating here reflected the public's healthy instinct, which will constantly tell you how much our situation is but understands very well that we are walking on thin ice. "

Stabbed in the back

Etzion, 51, whose overseas service badignments included serving as consul in San Francisco, and who was to become the number two of the Washington embbady, ​​but did not was appointed at the end (a particular episode to which we will return), began his career at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1992, when Uri Savir, the general manager, appointed him his badistant after Etzion completed the course cadets of the department. It is cut from the natural fabric of the old elite foreign affairs and security, which has been attacked in recent years by the political arena. He grew up in Rehovot in a Labor Party house and did his military service at Shaldag, the Air Force 's special operations unit of the Air Force. The father of three, he lives in Moshav Shoresh, west of Jerusalem. In the system, he was still known as liberal with a left orientation. At the same time, an important source from the Foreign Ministry, who knew his work, pointed out that "Eran has always presented a number of alternatives with arguments for every possible side, whether right or wrong. left. He did not say that there was only one line to follow, but proposed options on a broad spectrum. It's a pro. "

"He's super smart," says Uri Savir, his godfather at the Foreign Ministry. "When I led the negotiations on Oslo and Syria, he was at my side, and he distinguished himself by his brilliance and his ability to keep a secret.This is not a yes-man, which did not make it popular in our government realms. "

None of the dozens of his former colleagues I spoke to – some of whom I liked enthusiastically, others much less – doubted his high intelligence, his creativity and his character exceptional staff. But some have called it arrogant, even "politician" and "mediator". An old Ministry of Foreign Affairs source recalled: "When I checked, everyone told me that it was very political, that he had fled. It was said to me: to have such a person in your court, is to have a snake in your camp. I was warned that he would try to undermine me. "

You were still somewhat individualistic in the system, did not you?

"Yes, sometimes it was part of the mission and sometimes it was part of my personality, and sometimes both, and I remember that the first day of the cadet clbad, Channel 1 [state TV] did a story on us and did a short interview with me.I said something like: "Listen, I'm here now, yes, but I will not be here before retirement." It's a state of the art. Mind that others do not usually have it.

Have you been harbaded because of your character or your opinions?

"I n & # I do not like self-victimization.I am not a poor wretch.But I will tell you a story.One day, the direction of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has brought a management guru, somebody. one who advises Putin, the presidents, like that.One of the first questions he asked was: How do you perceive an agent of change in a bureaucratic organization? It's very simple – by the number of knives on his back, and then everyone watched me and burst out laughing, so that's the answer. "

During his early years at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (around 2000, Etzion went to work for the NSC for several years, before returning to the ministry), Etzion took an active part in negotiations with the Palestinians and Syrians. It was a time of great optimism, when ministry officials, as Etzion himself testified, fantasized about what the Israeli embbady building in Damascus would look like. At the time of Netanyahu, the Palestinian issue gradually faded and Iran became the center of the scene.

"I've dealt a lot with this subject," says Etzion, "both at the National Security Council and at the Foreign Ministry.There are things I can not talk about, but if my woman was sitting here, she would tell you how many sleepless nights I had … and not because I was at the office working … just for deep concern. "(Etzion refers mainly to the period 2009- 2013, when the idea of ​​an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities was under discussion.)

What scared you?

"I will explain indirectly, it is a clbadic question in which there must be a close integration between the diplomats and the military, and I, as a citizen and as a professional, I ask that the The system expresses both elements, but the system does not show the diplomatic side, and if so, it is distorted and unprofessional.The political and the diplomatic have become intertwined. They believe that they understand the diplomatic side, but they do not, and the public interest suffers, and these are problems of life and death.At a relatively early stage, the Department of Foreign Affairs came to the conclusion that there was a high probability of an agreement between the United States and Iran long before anybody else. In addition, others said that there was no chan this of it and no point to talk about it. Can you imagine how frustrating it is to understand something, but not get support from the political side? "

The "political side" of this period included Benjamin Netanyahu and, to a large extent, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who pleaded for an attack contrary to the opinion of the hierarchy of professional defense.

I asked Etzion that he held in high esteem among the many prime ministers he had met during his various tasks. "There is some difference between what is happening and what is in retrospect," he said. "Meanwhile, probably Ehud Barak, but the retrospective is different, and it relates to the way he behaved as prime minister, but also to things that I saw through the next, when he was the minister of defense, I have a lot of fears when it comes to this man. "

What are you afraid of?

"His judgment: There is something of a touch of megalomania out there."

Are you saying that in the wake of the pressure he's exerted to attack Iran?

"Yes, I've seen him in decision-making meetings, he's always the smartest in the room, he always knows and behaves accordingly, and that's also the way which people behave with him, including Netanyahu.After a few decades to be treated like this, apparently, he is doing something. "

There is a consensus in Israel, mainly thanks to Netanyahu, that the nuclear deal is bad.

"The agreement, in my opinion, as the opinion of the overwhelming majority of experts in the field, is not bad. Netanyahu called it bad agreement and launched a war around the title, "Better not agree that a bad deal." But the good deal, in which Iran gives up all its nuclear capability and closes all its faculties nuclear studies, etc. does not exist. "

Does Iran really want to annihilate us, as we are told?

"It's more of a political slogan.They know that they can not, so think that there is an Iranian strategy to destroy Israel, it's not giving them There are some who have adopted this rhetoric, but the prevailing opinion among many experts is that even if the Iranians succeed in developing or obtaining a nuclear weapon, there is little chance they are specifically targeting Israel – in fact, like most regimes that aspire to nuclear weapons, they have no intention of targeting anyone – they are not ready to commit suicide. "

What about other items that do not appear in the agreement, such as the Iranian aggression in the region and the financing of terrorism?

"There are a number of things to consider with regard to the Iranian issue – there is the nuclear element and the terrorist element and there is the element regional subversion, there is the element of missiles and the element of ideology-theology.There was a theory that it was possible and fair to confront the Iranians on a broad front and to try to negotiate with them, which was what we called the "big market", in which we would solve all these problems and reach an agreement, under which we give a bill of legitimacy to the Iranian regime. [The logic of that approach was that] the great fear of the Iranians during all these years, and rightly from their point of view, is the regime change.They already have experience with that, and they are right. "

So why is the agreement lacking in all these problems?

"The idea of ​​the" big market "dates back to the early stages of European negotiations with the Iranians in 2003, but at critical moments when it would have been possible to take this direction, Israelis and Americans said No. They said that of all these issues there is one that is really critical, which is the nuclear issue, and everything else can wait. "

Which Israelis?

"Netanyahu and other people from within the system.In itself, it's a reasonable approach.But the problem is that after doing this that you want, you can not turn around and say, what about missiles and terrorism, and why are not they in agreement?

In other words, the 12 claims that [U.S. Secretary of State] Mike Pompeo made of Iran with the vigorous support of Netanyahu, which include this range of issues, are the wisdom of hindsight ?

"It's nice.It's a lie.It was originally meant to screw up Obama, when it was clear that he was going for an agreement.And then all the arguments are valid, and hell with the story.In fact, I have a problem with Israeli leaders, Netanyahu and other prime ministers, who criticize the negotiating skills of Americans Who exactly is the Israeli Prime Minister or the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Israeli Defense Minister who can boast of success in the negotiations? No, not Ehud Barak and not Ehud Olmert and certainly not Netanyahu , who was and remains poor at negotiating .In Wye River Plantation, during his first term [in 1998] he reached agreements and then returned to Israel, panicked in front of the right wing, and s & # He was retracted, and during the Obama period he led negotiations With Hillary Clinton, she urged him to declare a temporary settlement freeze in exchange for a pretty crazy promise [from the American point of view] from another F-35 squadron. At first, he told him yes, then returned to Israel and backed down, because he was afraid of his base [electoral]. That happened not so long ago with the UN plan for asylum seekers. In short, in the negotiations, it is a disaster. But he and others have no problem criticizing the negotiating skills of Americans. "

Etzion, who has crossed Netanyahu in several of the positions he has held, can be very complimentary in describing his talents ("He is very insightful, extremely competent, I've also seen how he has gradually gained confidence over the years "). However, as he also claims to have participated in the Petah Tikva protests, urging the Attorney General to charge the Prime Minister, and now he has quite negative opinions about the rule of law system in Israel and the way in which the investigations against Netanyahu have been dealt with, it is difficult to call him a fan of the prime minister.

"My first experience with Netanyahu was not good," he recalls. "We met when he was finance minister and I was at the National Security Council, and we went to see him – myself and another senior official of the NSC – and he is sitting there. feet in the air and with a cigar, and the whole discussion was: "Okay, how much do you need? Two million? Three million? You understood it." I do not not think it's the only one to behave like that, but it's not particularly nice.

"But what struck me most forcefully about Netanyahu came in 2011, with the story of social protest.I went to protest on Saturday night, and then I went to protest. attended the security cabinet meetings and I saw the effect it had on him, it simply undermined his sense of control, he was completely thrown at him for a loop, and then he started to come up with all kinds of theories. conspiracy – that they are funded and organized – because after all, there is no way to protest civilly against him.And then he did everything he did To crush him, Suddenly, I realized how little congruence there was between the decision-making process and the public interest and the public will.The two do not converge. "

What is his vision, according to your impression? What does he want?

"I am going to tell you what I think his legacy is, distinct from his vision.The first thing is the burial of the Oslo accords and the removal of the idea of". a Palestinian State of the agenda – which it has largely accomplished.The second thing is the replacement of the "elites", which is also progressing well.And the third thing is the Iranian question, where it Trump really had an incredible chance, and without Trump his legacy would be a serious failure, from his point of view. "
To Etzion's credit, it can be said that he is consistent in his lack of esteem for Israel's political level, and he is ruthless in his criticism of all the early ministers with whom he came into contact. Who was the most problematic of all, in his opinion? "As far as Olmert is concerned, it's easy to say that I had reservations about it in real time and in retrospect." He always seemed too full of himself and not really attentive, enough enough.

Who was the most cooperative or the most attentive?

"Nobody was cooperative and attentive, this is part of the problem because the system does not support cooperation and attention.Many times, the discussion is just for the record and it is Is often a platform for personal or organizational ego fights – army-NSC-Mossad-Shin Bet – and it almost never reaches the level of strategy or policy.

In which forum are decisions made?

"Between the Prime Minister and one or two people who have his trust Let us say, with [Ariel] Sharon, it was [attorney Dov] Weissglas.With Olmert, it was Turbo [attorney Yoram Turbowicz, his chief of staff]. Netanyahu, it is an interesting question, but I do not think that there is a specific person today.The Prime Minister summons the security cabinet when they already know what the outcome will be. There are also all kinds of forums that prime ministers convene to choose who participates and who does not participate in. It's usually called a "security consultation," which is usually a code for "Let's talk about diplomatic policy issues without the presence of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ".

Why?

"Because they do not want the Foreign Ministry.They do not trust him.C is considered an organization that really has nothing to contribute to the discussion." diplomatic field was effectively expropriated from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in favor of the others.The Prime Minister is increasingly conducting diplomatic activity through what is known as the Office of Politico-Military Affairs of the Ministry of Defense, which has taken control of Israel 's relations with Jordan.The Mossad, which was still somehow in the gray region of the state, now feels more at home. ease of entering this realm.In addition to this, the Foreign Ministry is not made to not let things run, it has the image of leaking materials – this is largely unjustified – and the image of being a bastion of gauge che. "

Precisely, then?

"As with any perception, there is a grain of truth here, but in the end professional ethics at the Department of Foreign Affairs is stronger than any tendency." Moderation and Politics are translated directly into leftism.I see a stable trend over the years: when the alternatives are between preparing for the next war as if it were inevitable, and trying to prevent it, including by paying a price and through diplomatic mechanisms and agreements, the failure of the Israeli governments through the generations has been to go to war, because it is much cheaper politically.Many times we are campaigning, pay the prizes, including the victims, and come to something that could have been accomplished without bloodshed.It is true in the campaigns of the Gaza Strip, with the agreements we have with Hamas and that we deny whenever we we reach, even if we have achieved them. And it is as true today in Lebanon against Hezbollah, and it is also true for the offensive line against Iran – even though I agree that this is the case. 39 is a much more complicated and complex case. On all fronts, there is an agreement that we could have concluded but that we did not want. "

What agreement could we make?

"In Gaza, there is hudna or tahadiyeh [traditional Muslim concepts of short- and long-term cease-fire or truce] In Lebanon, for example, there were times when Israel demanded that Hezbollah be completely disarmed as a condition of any agreement, which of course It is possible, for example, that Hezbollah is integrated into the Lebanese army, with its capabilities and its political responsibility. The state will be formed, not a militia, and we will be able to sign an agreement with that state, with all that that entails.There is some risk, but on the other hand, it can help prevent In order to try these things, you must have some statesmen around the table and you need creativity and you need some preparation, and at the very least a real discussion – but it does not. There is none of this. "

But people will tell you that we left southern Lebanon and had 100,000 Hezbollah missiles aimed at our soft belly; we left Gaza and got "Hamastan", which makes the lives of the near Israeli communities miserable.

"But that's the difference between the unilateral movements and the agreements.I remember that when I was at the CNS during the period of disengagement [from Gaza, in 2005] Sharon called [NSC head Maj. Gen.] Giora Eiland and was says, "Look, I've decided that I'm going out, now tell me how, we've done an unprecedented process, a clbadic example of political planning, we sat down, we built alternatives." account, we recommended to go ahead and not to leave unilaterally.But Sharon did not want to listen.At the suggestion of his advisers, he acted contrary to the recommendation.He feared a precedent of & dquo; To accept a withdrawal of the 1967 lines and the implications of that for the West Bank, and for that we are paying a price so far. "

Bleaching Trump

Etzion is one of those figures whose US President, President Trump, is shooting down (until now, metaphorically). Knowledge, judgment and rationality are badets that quickly lose value in the Trump era. "I'm talking to people from the US Department of State or organizations like the FBI and the CIA today, Trump is just destroying these institutions systematically and violently." People are being deported or are forced to leave.There are many niches for ambbadadors and senior state department officials that Trump leaves vacant. "

Most Israelis believe that Trump is a good president for us.

"Israel is apparently the only country where Trump could be re-elected, which means something sad about us, and that says something sad about the extent to which the government controls the dialogue in Israel. Blinded here to the extent that Obama was tainted, Netanyahu and people like Sheldon Adelson were very influential on Trump, and you could see him even before the election.

Was Obama a better president for Israel?

"I think that # 39, it was, but to define that you have to ask what Israel is.It was bad for the Netanyahu government, but in my opinion, the Netanyahu government does not reflect the Israeli interest. In my opinion, Obama's journey – dealing first with the Palestinians and then forming a coalition against Iran – is more correct for the Israeli interest. était pas le seul à le penser. Mon homologue dans l'administration républicaine [George W.] Bush m'a dit que pendant la période de transition entre les administrations, Condoleezza Rice a dit à Hillary Clinton: Ne comptez pas sur les États du Golfe au détriment des Palestiniens, ne faites pas cette erreur. Et aujourd'hui, Trump et Netanyahu font exac tement cela. "

Peut-être que Trump comprend quelque chose que vous et vos collègues, avec toutes vos prévisions, vos articles et vos discours, ne comprennent pas?
          

"Trump se présente comme un dealmaker, mais il n'a jamais fait de deal. Soit il brise quelque chose qui existe, soit il propose une proposition, mais de toute façon ce n'est pas un processus de négociation. Quel a été le transfert de l'ambbadade à Jérusalem, par exemple? À un moment donné, Trump a apparemment essayé de dire à Netanyahu: «Je vous en demanderai le prix», mais il ne me semble pas qu'il va exiger n'importe quel prix, certainement pas tout ce qui a été convenu à l'avance. Il est unilatéral et anecdotique – il touche quelque chose et pbade à la chose suivante. "

Il ne reviendra pas en Iran? Il s'est retiré de l'accord et c'est tout?
          

"Il ne reviendra pas. C'est fait. À moins qu'il doive absolument: Si l'Iran acquiert vraiment la bombe et un dilemme surgit de ce qui doit être fait. Il a parlé à la Corée du Nord, et cela aussi n'était qu'un pâturage [on the topic]et je ne crois absolument pas sa déclaration muette que la menace nord-coréenne a été supprimée, parce qu'ils ne dénucléariseront pas, comme l'ont confirmé les estimations du renseignement. rendu public récemment. Et ensuite, il proposera une initiative diplomatique sur la question palestinienne et la laissera tomber aussi. Je suis sûr que Netanyahou aussi sait qu'il n'y a pas de stabilité dans la politique de Trump. "

Mais autour de Trump, vous voyez des gens sérieux et cohérents qui laissent leur marque – des faucons républicains conservateurs, du type Netanyahu.

«Il y a une différence entre Trump, qui, bien sûr, n'a pas de doctrine systématique mais a des instincts, et John Bolton, par exemple, le conseiller à la sécurité nationale. Bolton est un faucon de la vieille école, dans le sens de la domination mondiale américaine. En ce sens, Netanyahu est plus Bolton. En fin de compte, ils sont engagés dans une réduction de la politique de Netanyahu; Netanyahu veut que les Etats-Unis fbadent le travail pour nous. "

Signifiant d'attaquer l'Iran?
          

"Oui. Et la même chose est vraie en ce qui concerne la Syrie et les Palestiniens. "
          

Et est-ce que cela risque de se produire, croyez-vous?

"Non, parce que les délais dans lesquels l'Iran pense, planifie et agit sont beaucoup plus longs. Je pense que l'évaluation iranienne est que le régime aux États-Unis va changer bien avant le régime en Iran. Et à la minute où Trump va, un nouveau jeu va commencer. Et ils ont de la patience. Je pense qu'à la fin, on arrivera à un certain équilibre qui n'inclura ni une attaque contre les installations nucléaires, ni la production par les Iraniens d'une bombe. Les Iraniens sont trop intelligents pour un geste aussi stupide. "
          

Changement de plan
          

Comme il l'avait lui-même prédit, Etzion ne resta pas au ministère des Affaires étrangères jusqu'à l'âge de la retraite. En fait, l'épisode de son départ surprenant, à la fin de l'année 2013, est l'un des épisodes les plus mystérieux de l'histoire récente du ministère. Etzion était sur le point de devenir le numéro deux de l'ambbadade d'Israël à Washington. Selon des sources au ministère des Affaires étrangères, ses enfants étaient déjà inscrits dans des écoles et il avait même choisi une maison. Mais tout a été annulé et Etzion a disparu du ministère des Affaires étrangères.
          

Il est très difficile d'arriver à la vérité dans cet épisode particulier, notamment parce que, selon de nombreuses sources, un accord a été signé entre les parties exigeant le silence d'Etzion sur le sujet pour n'avoir pas pris de mesures contre lui. existence Etzion et le ministère des Affaires étrangères ne ni confirmer ni nier). Parmi les hauts fonctionnaires du ministère des Affaires étrangères, diverses explications ont circulé, et ce qu'ils ont en commun, c'est la suspicion d'une fuite d'Etzion.
          

The Etzion incident occurred against the background of a previous storm in the Foreign Ministry, in which two senior officials were accused (in 2009-2011) of having confirmed to a journalist the existence of a joint U.S.-Israel body for blocking Iran’s nuclear project. In that episode, Alon Bar, the deputy director general for strategic affairs, was subjected to a disciplinary hearing, but the Shin Bet investigation in his case found that he did not provide any clbadified information and did not harm state security; he was later appointed Israel’s ambbadador to Spain. Dan Arbel, a highly regarded diplomat in the ministry, was removed as the charge d’affaires in Washington and was reprimanded in a disciplinary hearing, even though the investigation into his case also turned up no criminal findings attesting to either intentional or unintentional harm to state security.
          

Most of those who were involved in that episode continue to point a finger at the then-foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, as being instrumental in the injustice done to two esteemed diplomats. One of the former Foreign Ministry directors general with whom I spoke did not wish – like the rest of his colleagues – to comment on the subject, but remarked, “The only thing I can say is that it’s very possible that Eran Etzion himself was a victim of the great anxiety about leaks that then reigned in the ministry.”
          

“Eran is an amazing person – smart, high-quality and judicious,” says Giora Eiland, who brought him into the NSC. “I don’t know the specifics of that incident, but it’s hard for me to believe that he did anything that could be termed as bad for Israel.”
          

Eran, what happened there?
          

“I am prohibited [from saying]. I’d be happy to, but I can’t.”
          

Were you wronged?

“I don’t want to put myself in that position. I am not a victim.”
          

It’s not a question of victimhood. When you were taken off the plane, as it were, on the way to a coveted post, were you wronged?
          

“I don’t know how to answer that. To begin with, I’m obviously not objective. I said at the time that it wasn’t unconnected with processes being undergone by the Israeli society.”
          

Were you framed for leaking?
          

“I wouldn’t put it like that, and what was reported on the subject is incorrect. There’s no question of a leak here. But what there is, I am not allowed to say. A great many things came together for me in that episode, and I said I’ll take early retirement, things have run their course and that’s it.”
          

Did you have a personal dispute with Lieberman, the dominant minister in your final years there?
          

“I can tell you a story. In fact, two episodes that come to mind. In the first episode, Aharon Abramovich, a wonderful person who was the director general [of the ministry]asked me, as part of the briefings for the incoming minister, to do a presentation on Iran. I had this secret laptop, with a presentation on the Iranian issue. Everything you wanted to know but were afraid to ask. We take our seats in the room, a very small forum, and Abramovich says, Eran will make the presentation. Then Lieberman asks, What do you have here? So I say, It’s the complete mapping of all the possible scenarios on the Iranian issue. And then he says, Not interesting. And that was the end of the meeting. Now, that is a sort of signal, of a message.
          

“A few weeks later, he reconvenes the small forum of senior Foreign Ministry officials, in a hotel in Mamilla [adjacent to the Old City in Jerusalem]. And then Lieberman says to us: Tell me what Israel’s interest is with regard to Egypt. And I, as the outstanding apprentice who came from the NSC, raise my hand and say, ‘Preserving the peace agreement…. ’ And Lieberman goes into a fit of laughter and says to me, ‘Boy, oh boy, what a leftist you are.’ And all my friends laugh with him. So you understand that you have a choice: Either you conform or you’re tossed to the sidelines. I received the appointment of the charge d’affaires in Washington after I tried to get an ambbadadorial post in all kinds of places and was torpedoed each time. And they even tried to torpedo the Washington posting.”
          

Who are they – Lieberman and Netanyahu?
          

“I don’t want you to write that.”
          

From the office of Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, the following response was received: “We would expect from Mr. Eran Etzion to make it clear under what circumstances, against which background and why he was forced to resign from the Foreign Ministry and only then to hurl mud in every direction. To remove all doubt, we shall emphasize that Etzion was forced to leave the Foreign Ministry in a period in which Lieberman was an MK and the chairman of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, and was not serving as foreign minister.” (Lieberman is referring to the months in which he suspended himself from the position of foreign minister in the wake of his 2013 trial – and subsequent acquittal – on charges of fraud and breach of trust, in the "ambbadador affair.")
          

From Prime Minister Netanyahu office, Haaretz received this response: “Eran Etzion attests of himself that he went to demonstrate against the government at a time when he held a senior government post in the Foreign Ministry and in the NSC. To demonstrate against yourself? That says it all about his mendacious and unfounded allegations, which are totally unrelated to reality. It’s regrettable that officials who find themselves inactive outside the system, after not having been found worthy for promotion, are quick to hurl lying garbage with the aim of scrounging a media interview.”
          

Etzion is currently active in a number of strategic forums and organizations, and provides consultation and training services to various governmental bodies. When I ask him which governmental bodies he works with, he declines to say, because some of them unabashedly want to play down the connection with him because of his left-wing image. He is also involved in a democratic-promotion initiative, about which he doesn’t want to divulge details at this time, but which in his view will reflect the big bang that is already occurring in the political system worldwide.
          

“I think there is a substantive problem in the political system, not only in Israel but globally,” he says. “The mechanism of representation is broken – they no longer represent us but other things. It sounds trivial, but I saw it up-close. There are two possible answers to the problem. One is to move in the direction of authoritarian leaders of the Trump, Erdogan and Netanyahu type. The other side of the spectrum is citizens who say: We understand that the system doesn’t represent us, but we are not willing to give them that power, we want to take it for ourselves. I think that, in the big picture, we have to reinvent democracy.”