There are many reasons to justify why US President-elect Donald Trump has picked his close adviser and long-time friend David Friedman to be ambassador to Israel, but maintaining the status quo between Israelis and Palestinians is unlikely one of them, according to experts.
Friedman, a fiery critic of both the Jewish left and US mainstream policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, has gone as far as accusing US President Barack Obama of “blatant anti-Semitism,” and compared US Jewish groups that are critical of Israel to Kapos, Jews who collaborated with the Nazis during World War II.
Departure from the status quo
The Friedman nomination, if confirmed by the Senate, would mark a departure from previous US ambassadors who held the post, says Matt Duss, president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace.
“It’s a departure from the US consensus since at least the Bill Clinton administration (1992), and from the overwhelming international consensus favoring a Palestinian state,” Duss told Arab News. For one, Friedman — a bankruptcy lawyer who has known Trump for 15 years — recently called the two-state solution “an illusion … a narrative that now needs to end.”
Even in accepting the nomination, Friedman was consistent in stirring controversy. His statement read: “I intend to work tirelessly to strengthen the unbreakable bond between our two countries and advance the cause of peace within the region, and look forward to doing this from the US Embassy in Israel’s eternal capital, Jerusalem.”
Moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would be a break from successive American administrations since 1967, which have considered the holy city as a final-status issue in any negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis.
However, making statements and campaign promises on moving the embassy is different from setting policy, says Duss. “Such promises usually don’t survive contact with security briefings, where presidents are told how such a move could needlessly inflame the situation,” he added.
Former Saudi head of intelligence Prince Turki Al-Faisal warned last month in remarks in Washington, DC, that such a move by Trump would be met by the 57 member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) withdrawing their ambassadors from Washington.
Settlements and consolation to the right
Where Friedman’s nomination could be more effective is in supporting Israeli settlement expansion in Jerusalem and the West Bank. David Shor, a foreign policy expert based in New York, told Arab News: “The most immediate result of Friedman’s ambassadorship would be the weakening of anti-settlement groups that have previously worked closely with the US embassy and consulate.”
Friedman heads the American Friends of Bet El Yeshiva, a pro-settlement group that received a total of $38,000 between 2011 and 2013 from the Kushner family, reported the Washington Post. Jared Kushner is married to Trump’s daughter Ivanka, and reportedly eyes a post as Middle East peace envoy tasked with resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Shor sees in Friedman’s appointment a consolation from Trump to the pro-Israeli right that supported him during the campaign. However, whether it is a consolation prize or a shift in policy will be determined, according to Shor, by the fate of another possible nomination: Former ambassador to the UN John Bolton floated for deputy secretary of state.
“Friedman’s appointment is clearly meant to symbolize Trump’s purported interest in departing from the status quo on Israel, yet if he doesn’t nominate Bolton... Friedman might be nothing more than window-dressing,” Shor said.
The New York Times reported on Thursday that a potential Bolton nomination is facing increasing hurdles from Republicans in the Senate.
Regardless, shifting longstanding US policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would require more than the ambassadorship, both Duss and Shor contend. The Palestinian side has taken a cautious approach in responding to Friedman’s nomination, with chief Palestinian negotiator
Saeb Erekat telling journalists on Friday that Friedman “has no right to make decisions on my future. I don’t think (the Trump administration) will do it.”
However, Duss warns that “the Palestinians could see the nomination as further evidence that the US isn’t a reliable peace broker and look for other options, like the international route” at the UN, or perhaps lean on other players in the region such as Russia.
In that context, the hearings for Friedman’s nomination promise a media show in Washington next month, with his opponents – whom he labeled “far worse than Kapos” – rejecting his nomination and calling him “reckless” and “unfit.”

Source: Arab News