A Dangerous Choice for Ambassador to Israel - by The NYT Editorial Board
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 didnt 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. Friedmans 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. Friedmans 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 Americas role as an honest broker.
more
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/opinion/a-dangerous-choice-for-ambassador-to-israel.html?emc=edit_th_20161217&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=57435284&_r=0
no_hypocrisy
(46,010 posts)Reminds me of Bush 43 appointing Alberto Gonzalez to be Attorney General. His professional law experience was real estate closings.
It wouldn't surprise me if he insisted on the Embassy being moved to EAST Jerusalem in a predominantly Palestinian district.