The choice of David M. Friedman as American ambassador to Israel has occasioned normal news coverage—and also a barrage of aggressive commentary from liberal opinion leaders. In an editorial, the New York Times criticized the choice because, among other things, Friedman is a “bankruptcy lawyer” lacking in traditional diplomatic experience. But, Elliott Abrams points out, the fact the Friedman is a bankruptcy lawyer “is not his only, or his primary, disqualification in the eyes of the Left. . . . The real problem is that Friedman’s views are anathema to them.” Those views, of course, are the views of the man taking over the White House—and having an ambassador on the same page as the president can only be a good thing. Abrams continues:
I do not share all of Mr. Friedman’s views, but I am delighted that the United States will soon have an envoy who can do what the Israeli ambassador in Washington can do: call home and speak to the top guy. I’m very pleased that we’ll have an ambassador who has known the country to which he is accredited for decades and won’t need briefing books to learn its geography. I think it’s great that we’ll have someone deeply committed to Israel’s security (consider this story, told by a friend of his: “he decided to buy a home in Jerusalem on the day in 2002 that a Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up at Café Moment, a popular bar in the city, killing 11 Israelis”) and to its well-being (he organized a fund that built a village in the Negev for disabled Jewish and Bedouin kids).
Traditional diplomat? Not at all. On the right? For sure. And, brilliant lawyer and deeply committed Zionist. He will have to forge new relationships with Israeli Arabs and Israeli leftists, figure out how to interact with the State Department and other parts of the United States government, and learn more about Israel’s relations with Russia, and with Egypt and Jordan. So would any new envoy. But they would not come to the position with the knowledge and commitment or the sheer intellectual power that Friedman brings, nor would they have the total confidence of the President of the United States.
The coming years could bring more tumult in Arab lands, attacks on Israel by ISIS or Hizballah, a succession crisis in Ramallah, or even a new Israeli prime minister. Israel and the United States are very much better off when the American ambassador can do far more than deliver messages from Washington. . . .
Read more on Pressure Points: http://blogs.cfr.org/abrams/2016/12/18/the-next-ambassador-to-israel/