New York Times Slams Trump’s Choice for Ambassador to Israel as ‘Dangerous’

Date:

David Friedman, left, with Donald Trump and his daughter Ivanka after an appearance in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in 2010. Credit Bradley C. Bower/Bloomberg
David Friedman, left, with Donald Trump and his daughter Ivanka after an appearance in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in 2010. Credit Bradley C. Bower/Bloomberg

The paper points out how and why Friedman could upend the 68-year old US policy on the Middle East conflict by some extreme measures like moving US embassy to Jerusalem and rejecting the two-state solution to resolve Palestine-Israel conflict

Caravan Daily

NEW YORKPowerful US daily, The New York Times, has slammed the incoming President Donald Trump for picking controversial bankruptcy lawyer and extremist Israeli supporter David Friedman for the sensitive job of US Ambassador to Israel.  In a strongly worded editorial titled, A Dangerous Choice for Ambassador to Israel, the Times (December 17 issue), has slammed the incoming president for choosing someone like Friedman for such a sensitive job: “Mr. Friedman has doubted the need for a two-state solution, under which Israelis and Palestinians could live side by side in peace. Ignoring international law and decades of policy under Republican and Democratic administrations, he has endorsed continued Israeli settlement of occupied territory in the West Bank, which Israel captured from Jordan during the 1967 war. Mr. Friedman has gone so far as to endorse even the annexation of some of that land, where Palestinians hope to build a state of their own.”

The Times goes to argue: “Like any president-elect, Mr. Trump is within his rights to nominate whomever he pleases. But with his choice of Mr. Friedman, he has displayed a dangerous ignorance of or indifference to the land mines across the Middle East. The Senate has the responsibility to protect Mr. Trump and the country from taking this reckless step.”

The paper points out how and why Friedman could upend the 68-year old US policy on the Israel-Palestine conflict by some extreme measures:

“In a further sign of Mr. Friedman’s apparent zeal for confrontation rather than diplomatic finesse, he has announced that he expects to have his office in Jerusalem, rather than Tel Aviv, where the American Embassy has been for 68 years, along with the embassies of most other countries. Both Israelis and Palestinians claim Jerusalem, which has sites that are sacred to Muslims, Christians and Jews, as their capital. Like the crucial questions of borders, Israeli security and the fate of Palestinian refugees and their descendants, the contested status of Jerusalem should be resolved by negotiation, not by American fiat. Unilaterally relocating the embassy to Jerusalem would be interpreted as tipping the scale for Israel, further eroding America’s role as an honest broker.”

Following is the full text of the Times editorial:

A Dangerous Choice for Ambassador to Israel

In appointing David Friedman as the next ambassador to Israel, Donald Trump voiced a desire to “strive for peace in the Middle East.” Unfortunately, his chosen representative would be far more likely to provoke conflict in Israel and the occupied territories, heighten regional tensions and undermine American leadership.

Mr. Friedman, a bankruptcy lawyer who has represented the president-elect in matters involving Atlantic City casinos, has no diplomatic experience, unlike nearly every American ambassador who has served in this most sensitive of posts. That might not be quite so alarming if he didn’t also hold extremist views that are radically at odds with American policy and with the views of most Americans.

Mr. Friedman has doubted the need for a two-state solution, under which Israelis and Palestinians could live side by side in peace. Ignoring international law and decades of policy under Republican and Democratic administrations, he has endorsed continued Israeli settlement of occupied territory in the West Bank, which Israel captured from Jordan during the 1967 war. Mr. Friedman has gone so far as to endorse even the annexation of some of that land, where Palestinians hope to build a state of their own.

There are other reasons to question Mr. Friedman’s fitness for the post. He has accused President Obama of anti-Semitism, absurdly, and called supporters of J Street — a liberal American Jewish organization that has lobbied for a two-state solution and the Iran nuclear deal — “far worse than kapos — Jews who turned in their fellow Jews in the Nazi death camps.” American ambassadors to Israel traditionally maintain close contacts with American Jews, as well as Israeli officials, but Mr. Friedman reportedly told a closed-door forum in Washington earlier this month that he would refuse to meet with J Street, effectively ostracizing a significant part of the community.

In a further sign of Mr. Friedman’s apparent zeal for confrontation rather than diplomatic finesse, he has announced that he expects to have his office in Jerusalem, rather than Tel Aviv, where the American Embassy has been for 68 years, along with the embassies of most other countries. Both Israelis and Palestinians claim Jerusalem, which has sites that are sacred to Muslims, Christians and Jews, as their capital. Like the crucial questions of borders, Israeli security and the fate of Palestinian refugees and their descendants, the contested status of Jerusalem should be resolved by negotiation, not by American fiat. Unilaterally relocating the embassy to Jerusalem would be interpreted as tipping the scale for Israel, further eroding America’s role as an honest broker.

Donald Trump promised to relocate the embassy to Jerusalem during his campaign. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush also promised to move the embassy when they first ran for president, only to drop the idea after their elections because they realized that such a highly charged symbolic gesture would anger Arabs and undermine peace efforts.

The Trump administration could make the move pretty easily by slapping an “embassy” sign on the building that is now the American Consulate in Jerusalem and deals primarily with Palestinian issues. No one can predict what the fallout might be, but the sorrowful history of the conflict suggests that such a move would provoke violence and impede Israeli efforts to improve relations with major Sunni Arab states.

Like any president-elect, Mr. Trump is within his rights to nominate whomever he pleases. But with his choice of Mr. Friedman, he has displayed a dangerous ignorance of or indifference to the land mines across the Middle East. The Senate has the responsibility to protect Mr. Trump and the country from taking this reckless step.

 

theclarionindia
theclarionindiahttps://clarionindia.net
Clarion India - News, Views and Insights about Indian Muslims, Dalits, Minorities, Women and Other Marginalised and Dispossessed Communities.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Share post:

Subscribe

spot_imgspot_img

Popular

More like this
Related

Mukhtar Ansari’s Death: Tejashwi, Owaisi Smell a Rat

Mukhtar’s son Umar Ansari had moved the Supreme Court...

Madrasa Organisations Gear Up to Challenge Allahabad HC Verdict

In a bid to consolidate efforts and present a...

Magisterial Probe Ordered into Mukhtar Ansari’s Death

LUCKNOW— Uttar Pradesh government has ordered a magisterial investigation...