Trump’s ambassador to Israel: a radical change
So many of Trump’s appointments have raised a furor that it’s hard to keep up with the din.
But a particularly interesting one that I haven’t written about yet is David Friedman as ambassador to Israel. Friedman is most definitely a pro-Israel (pro-settlement, pro Jerusalem as capital) hardliner who has said some inflammatory things, such as this column, written last June. If you read it, it becomes clear what they are squawking about.
The appointment of Friedman is a signal that Trump is not planning business as usual in the Palestine/Israel conflict. Now, an ambassador is not the same as a negotiator, but an ambassador is influential, and Friedman’s appointment is definitely a sign that things will be shaken up there in ways with which the left—and even some Republicans—will not be happy.
Here are more unhappy people:
[Friedman] is strongly critical of the long-held US goal of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
He also supports Jewish settlement building in the occupied West Bank and moving the US embassy to Jerusalem.
A senior Palestinian official warned that such moves “will be the destruction of the peace process”.
Veteran negotiator Saeb Erekat said moving the embassy and “annexing” settlements in the West Bank would send the region down a path to “chaos, lawlessness and extremism”.
However, he said he did not really believe that Mr Trump would approve either action.
“The United States at the end of the day is a country of institutions, and they are guided by their national interests,” he said.
“Destruction of the peace process”? What “peace process” is left? It is a polite fiction that remains, like a vestigial organ, long after its function has disappeared. And “chaos, lawlessness, and extremism” in the West Bank? Since when has the region not been marked by those things? It is another polite (and ultimately destructive) fiction not to recognize that fact.
I have no idea whether Trump “would approve either action.” Neither does anyone else—perhaps not even Trump. My opinion is that what has been going on in that neck of the woods has not worked. The only thing that has “worked” in recent years has been Israel’s building of the protective wall that so many people have criticized. What’s the next step, and will it be successful? I don’t know, but it seems it will be something quite different.
Here’s John Podhoretz on the subject:
The reason Trump has chosen Friedman is that he has evidently decided he wants to up-end the conventional approach toward Israel and the Palestinians and go in a radically different direction. This was not predictable from Trump’s campaign rhetoric, when he talked about being “even-handed” and wanting to make a great real-estate deal. It’s possible he believes he can defibrillate the occluded heart of the “peace process” by approaching the Palestinians from a highly aggressive pro-Israel stance. If he actually wants to make a real deal, pursuing the entirely discredited approach of trying to drag the Palestinians to the table at which they refuse to sit is the worst possible strategy anyway.
The scalp hunters will be out for David Friedman, but if Democrats decide to go to war over this nomination, the joke will be on them. For one thing, blocking or derailing Friedman is a vastly more difficult thing to do now than it would have been otherwise because Senate Democrats, living in a fantasy world in which his party would always hold the presidency, stupidly invoked the nuclear option on executive appointments in July 2013 and have now made the passage of such appointments a matter of a simple majority vote in the Senate. For another, Republicans in Congress (with a 52-48 majority) are the nation’s foremost right-wing Zionists now and will meet any attacks on him with delighted counterattacks and defenses. And finally, should they succeed in derailing him, there are many other prominent Americans who share his views to whom Trump could turn. Personnel is policy. This is the policy the president of the United States wants to pursue. He’ll get the ambassador he wants, and he will pursue the policy he wants. Know why? Because he will be the president.
We’ll see.
It will take some getting used to for the left.
Interesting times, interesting times.
Neo…the only thing I don’t understand is your reference to Mr. Friedman’s article as inflammatory…Made perfect sense to me.
Israel does not have a well intentioned negotiating partner…and I don’t see that changing so long as Islam is the animating worldview of the opposition.
This fantasy of genuine negotiations between the two sides is a complete joke, and has been from the beginning. People that don’t understand this are either foolish, ill-intentioned, or both.
What a great choice for ambassador. Though Mr. Trump was far from my first choice, he continues to impress the heck out
of me.
Paul R:
Something can be correct and yet inflammatory, by the way.
But the particularly inflammatory part was the “kapo” part. He’s saying this:
Well, I can easily imagine something worse.
By the way, I wrote a piece on the wrongful use of the “kapo” comparison, although I wasn’t talking about Friedman’s use of it. I’d never heard of him till Trump named him ambassador.
I entirely applaud Trump’s choice of Friedman and fully support Friedman’s POV. Though I take it further; Isreal should annex the West Bank and Gaza and then expell every Muslim from greater Israel. As it is not possible to fully embrace Islam and also be a loyal citizen of Israel. Nor because of Islam’s doctrines of Taqiyya & Muruna is it possible to reliably distinguish between the malevolent Muslim and the moderate Muslim.
Who allows predators to reside in their home?
GB
Dittos.
The irony of the West Bank is that IT’S the true home of the Jews, Tel Aviv, not so much.
Why ?
The historical and archeological record.
The ancient population lived where the water was. Without modern water pumps, Tel Aviv is actually a pretty dry place.
All the ancient water works are consistently found in the high ground — especially near Jerusalem.
Arafat, himself, denied he was a Palestinian — in Arabic. For in Arabic, he always claimed to be an Arab.
He was only a so-called ‘Palestinian’ for the rubes in the Western press.
And who can forget that until the 1960’s Palestinian only ever meant the Jews living in Israel// the British Mandate.
The Arabs only became so-called Palestinians when the ‘cry-bully’ media strategy was invoked. ( By the KGB I here tell. )
And who can forget that Gaza started its existence as an Egyptian army base ?
It didn’t have a ‘native’ population to speak off. The water was so bad that no-one would bring a wife and child there.
By their genes, the Arab Gazan crowd is Egyptian.
Whereas the Arab West Bank crowd is Jordanian plus more.
This goes a long way towards explaining the weird politics of Hamas in Gaza and the Fatah crowd in the West Bank.
I was just thinking about the political hangers-on from the campaign, the ones trying to rejuvenate their careers by sucking up to Trump: Gingrich, Huckabee, Christie, Giuliani. None of them has gotten a job so far, have they? I guess you could consider Carson in that group, but he didn’t have a political career before the race.
“The reason Trump has chosen Friedman is that he has evidently decided he wants to up-end the conventional approach toward Israel and the Palestinians and go in a radically different direction.” {Podhoretz]
“The conventional approach” has been repeating the same thing over and over while hoping for different results.
As neo points out the so-called destruction of the peace process? How would anyone tell the difference between before and after?
“Who allows predators to reside in their home?” [Gepoffrey Britain @ 7:01]
The Germans, The Swedes, the Dutch, the French . . . .
David Friedman is an excellent choice. He understands that only one side of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the true guardian of Western Values and Human Rights. What a refreshing thought!
His views on the admitted Nazi-collaborater funded J-Street being worse than Kapos are also 100% correct.
All True Christians must support tiny, besieged, democratic Israel and should be delighted with the Ambassador-Designate.
The fact that he is yet another President-Elect Trump appointment that has enraged the left is just icing on the cake.
Got it Neo…agreed…
I am just a simple man in flyover country, but I understand Israel/Jews are our only allies in the ME and one of a hand full of countries we can trust to watch our 6. Yet another Trump choice that pleasantly surprises me.
Ny Times hates, hates, did I say hates? this appointment– yes!
Neo opines, “So many of Trump’s appointments have raised a furor that it’s hard to keep up with the din.”
I ask, why should anyone keep up with the din? And, who is raising the furor?
Answer is: the din and furor are from our political enemy. Not adversary, but enemy. The Left rediscovers our Constitution only when it suits them.
The Left will NEVER get used to it. They are real-life zombies. They just keep on a-coming.
Trump’s nominee selections show a savvy brilliance that is remarkable. As an opinion in the WaPo, I think it was, complained, he has not nominated intellectuals, lawyers, or academics.
Hallelujah!
And there’s this;
http://freebeacon.com/blog/nyt-meltdown-trumps-israel-nominee/
Man oh man, I’ve been trying for over a year to figure out this Trump guy. Here’s what I’ve got so far:
1. He’s antisemitic
2. He’s too pro-Israel
Am I getting close?
Does anyone here play chess? This appointment is a brilliant political gambit on a par with the Carrier move. At the same time it signals a strategy of open defiance aimed directly at Israel’s Muslim enemies.
I believe this answers the question I’ve been raising about the generals. These appointments are not business as usual; they indicate an aggressive stance; they are being made not to just put qualified and competent people in place; they appear to be part of an overall plan that doesn’t care if it invites conflict.
I won’t be commenting any further about this, not on this message board, and not after this appointment. Suffice to say, Trump, with Bannon, Kushner, et al, hiding in the background, led the voters of this country to believe one thing when in fact something else was in the offing. They didn’t lie about the program per se, they just neglected to spell out the means and ramifications to a credulous electorate. No need to link to it, but since Andrew Sullivan was mentioned in another post, his after-election piece, while emotionally over the top (as usual for him) pretty well nailed it.
“They are just smug advocates of Israel’s destruction delivered from the comfort of their secure American sofas” << this is his opinion.
I find it more likely that Israel would be destroyed by following their advice, than that it will be destroyed by following Friedman's advice.
Fight back more against the terror rockets coming from Gaza, including drones & more surveillance and more Israeli policing. Stop asking them for Peace — just punish the guilty more for using violence. Kill or capture the would-be killers, preferably before they commit murder.
It's a bit too bad that the success of Israel's wall in reducing attacks hasn't been more discussed.
There will be some future Dem complaint against "Israel treats Palestinians poorly" — I sort of hope Trump replies "Compare with Arab treatment of Arabs in Syria — the Palestinians never had it as good as they have it."
It would be good to follow the development / NGO / semi-pro-terrorist funding trails.
Welcome realism to our mid-East policy.
http://manningthewall.com
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUDY17Xg_Ix5kaenkryh63g
https://twitter.com/manningthewall
I have been saying for years that there is only one way to solve the whole Israel/Palestine issue.
I would put Israel on notice. There is no way the Palestinians ever come to peace, if every time they start a war, they are saved by a cease fire the minute they start getting their asses handed to them.
So next time a flare up starts, if Israel starts to waffle when the usual suspects scream for a cease fire, the US says the opposite.
Crush them or become our enemy. I would hold Israel accountable for the Palestinian atrocities. Do that and you will get peace. Continue with the slow bleed policies that kill hundreds or thousands a year forever is insane.
These people only come to the peace table with a sword on their neck. That is how they have always been, and will ever be.
Jim Do:
So make Israeli responsible for the actions of those who wish to destroy Israel? With friends like that who need an enemy?
OM. Exactly.
What do you think our response would be to Mexico if they were doing this crap to us? Mexico would have ceased to exist as a country around 1981.
Mexico and the US as a analogy for Israel and the Palestinians? Are you serious? Find a better straw man. What part of “exactly” do you understand?