• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump appoints hard-line pro-settlement lawyer as Israeli ambassador [W:4]

Aristaeus

Aristaeus

Preferred 2nd person pronoun: thou
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2014
Messages
8,214
Reaction score
4,032
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Donald Trump has named a bankruptcy lawyer who represented the president-elect over his failing hotels in Atlantic City, as the new US ambassador to Israel.

Friedman serves as president of the American Friends of Bet El Institutions, which funds settlements in the West Bank. He disagrees with the general international consensus that the settlements are illegal and he opposes a ban on settlement construction on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem. He has long supported an undivided Jerusalem as the Israeli capital and is opposed to a two-state solution.

The Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz, described Friedman’s views as being on the far right of the Israeli political spectrum, more hardline than prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

“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,” the lawyer said.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/15/trump-israel-ambassador-david-friedman

Goodbye to whatever slim chance there was of peace in the middle east. Pro-settlement and anti two-state solution are not compatible to a peace process. Condoning and encouraging the violation of international law will just antagonise the rest of the world.
 
Aristaeus said:
Donald Trump has named a bankruptcy lawyer who represented the president-elect over his failing hotels in Atlantic City, as the new US ambassador to Israel.

Friedman serves as president of the American Friends of Bet El Institutions, which funds settlements in the West Bank. He disagrees with the general international consensus that the settlements are illegal and he opposes a ban on settlement construction on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem. He has long supported an undivided Jerusalem as the Israeli capital and is opposed to a two-state solution.

The Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz, described Friedman’s views as being on the far right of the Israeli political spectrum, more hardline than prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

“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,” the lawyer said.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/15/trump-israel-ambassador-david-friedman

Goodbye to whatever slim chance there was of peace in the middle east. Pro-settlement and anti two-state solution are not compatible to a peace process. Condoning and encouraging the violation of international law will just antagonise the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

Peace in the Middle East? You mean in Syria? ;)

But all joking aside. The situation in the area is not even near a point, where sustainable peace is an option. It is even unclear, how the states could be structured to guarantee security for the people and free self government, while at the same time finding legitimacy in the populations. There might have been but probably was only a deception a window of opportunity long ago, That window is in an even now closed tight and Friedman is not going to change that one way or the other. How could anyone right now.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Closed for review. The thread WILL be re-opened once review is done.
 
Aristaeus said:
Donald Trump has named a bankruptcy lawyer who represented the president-elect over his failing hotels in Atlantic City, as the new US ambassador to Israel.

Friedman serves as president of the American Friends of Bet El Institutions, which funds settlements in the West Bank. He disagrees with the general international consensus that the settlements are illegal and he opposes a ban on settlement construction on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem. He has long supported an undivided Jerusalem as the Israeli capital and is opposed to a two-state solution.

The Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz, described Friedman’s views as being on the far right of the Israeli political spectrum, more hardline than prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

“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,” the lawyer said.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/15/trump-israel-ambassador-david-friedman

Goodbye to whatever slim chance there was of peace in the middle east. Pro-settlement and anti two-state solution are not compatible to a peace process. Condoning and encouraging the violation of international law will just antagonise the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

Being against the two-states solution is indeed 'not compatible to a peace process', being pro-settlement is something that could work with a peace agreement as one of the most possible solutions involves land swapping that would keep the majority of the big settlements under Israel's control. The question is how much of anti two-states solution he truly is.

That being said he's also just the ambassador to Israel, he isn't really involved in the negotiations with the Palestinians(not that there are any), in addition to the fact that the US isn't even a negotiating party here.
Huge hyperbole.
 
Last edited:
I wonder what this could mean for Israel-US relations if a left-winger PM is elected. Seeing how 8 years of Obama and his policies that heavily favored a two-state peace process and were often times very critical of Israel in comparison to past US presidents over the past 20 years or so, having the two sides switch places/nations could prove disastrous to US-Israel relations. In another thread I highlight the growing of closeness between Russia/Putin and the Israeli government, which could also factor into this.
 
ROFL! So much for attaining peace in that region.
 
Aristaeus said:
Donald Trump has named a bankruptcy lawyer who represented the president-elect over his failing hotels in Atlantic City, as the new US ambassador to Israel.

Friedman serves as president of the American Friends of Bet El Institutions, which funds settlements in the West Bank. He disagrees with the general international consensus that the settlements are illegal and he opposes a ban on settlement construction on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem. He has long supported an undivided Jerusalem as the Israeli capital and is opposed to a two-state solution.

The Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz, described Friedman’s views as being on the far right of the Israeli political spectrum, more hardline than prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

“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,” the lawyer said.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/15/trump-israel-ambassador-david-friedman

Goodbye to whatever slim chance there was of peace in the middle east. Pro-settlement and anti two-state solution are not compatible to a peace process. Condoning and encouraging the violation of international law will just antagonise the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

Well , imo ,a resolution to the conflict would be assured if the US would just end its support for and its protection of Israeli violations of international law ( ongoing for just on 50 years now ) The introduction of Friedman as US ambassador to Israel only cements further support for Israeli crimes but the people before him also offered no hope of an end to US support for Israel either.

For all the talk of Obamas stance on Israel ( Friedman accusing him of " antisemitism " , shock horror :roll: ) no serious observers would hold it up as a radical shift. Washington still remains Israeli occupied territory and the prospects for a change are no more likely now than they have been since the 6 Day War when the Israeli/US love affair really took off
 
Last edited:
Aristaeus said:
Donald Trump has named a bankruptcy lawyer who represented the president-elect over his failing hotels in Atlantic City, as the new US ambassador to Israel.

Friedman serves as president of the American Friends of Bet El Institutions, which funds settlements in the West Bank. He disagrees with the general international consensus that the settlements are illegal and he opposes a ban on settlement construction on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem. He has long supported an undivided Jerusalem as the Israeli capital and is opposed to a two-state solution.

The Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz, described Friedman’s views as being on the far right of the Israeli political spectrum, more hardline than prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

“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,” the lawyer said.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/15/trump-israel-ambassador-david-friedman

Goodbye to whatever slim chance there was of peace in the middle east. Pro-settlement and anti two-state solution are not compatible to a peace process. Condoning and encouraging the violation of international law will just antagonise the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

The ambassador can help negotiate but has zero power and minimal influence to effect policy anywhere he or she serves. The ambassador is our voice to the served nation and their voice back to the U.S. But this sends a very clear message to Netanyahu and the Israelis that Trump meant what he said about being Israel's friend, ally, and they can count on him to be on their side, something they haven't been able to count on for a very long time.

That is also a strong signal to the enemies of Israel who want to hate Israel but be on the good side of the USA. They may actually have to choose between one or the other now.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The ambassador can help negotiate but has zero power and minimal influence to effect policy anywhere he or she serves. The ambassador is our voice to the served nation and their voice back to the U.S. But this sends a very clear message to Netanyahu and the Israelis that Trump meant what he said about being Israel's friend, ally, and they can count on him to be on their side, something they haven't been able to count on for a very long time.

That is also a strong signal to the enemies of Israel who want to hate Israel but be on the good side of the USA. They may actually have to choose between one or the other now.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. The Americans and Europeans have tried applying pressure only to the Israelis for a long time now (Obama's general foreign policy approach has been to be harder on allies than adversaries).

As the primary obstacle here has always been Palestinian rejectionism, hopefully this change in posture will better be able to get us to where the vast majority of people on all sides want to be. Cause being all over Israel while giving the Palestinians a free pass on intentions and actions clearly doesn't work.
 
AlbqOwl said:
But this sends a very clear message to Netanyahu and the Israelis that Trump meant what he said about being Israel's friend, ally, and they can count on him to be on their side, something they haven't been able to count on for a very long time.
Click to expand...


I don't really see how you can claim such a thing as the part I highlighted in the above. Sure the fact that Obama didn't appear to like Netanyahu came through but , over all ,the usual supporting stuff the US does for Israel never changed

The out going Obama administration has just completed a deal with Israel to up its annual " aid " from around 3.1 billion dollars to around 3.9 billion dollars for the next ten years. They also voted against the 2012 UN vote on Palestinian non member observer status
 
oneworld2 said:
I don't really see how you can claim such a thing as the part I highlighted in the above. Sure the fact that Obama didn't appear to like Netanyahu came through but , over all ,the usual supporting stuff the US does for Israel never changed

The out going Obama administration has just completed a deal with Israel to up its annual " aid " from around 3.1 billion dollars to around 3.9 billion dollars for the next ten years. They also voted against the 2012 UN vote on Palestinian non member observer status
Click to expand...

Yes and it upped the aid to the Palestinians too. The fact that public pressures requirea the USA to continue to be Israel's ally--I am quite certain that had those public pressures not been in place, we would have been much less an ally to Israel during the Obama administration as there is no love lost between Obama and Netanyahu--but that does not mean that the Israelis were confident that the powers of the USA were friends of Israel.

It is sort of like Planned Parenthood enjoying federal funding at the moment, but being nervous that it could be pulled at any time. This example/analogy is in no way comparing Planned Parenthood with Israel.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Yes and it upped the aid to the Palestinians too. The fact that public pressures requirea the USA to continue to be Israel's ally--I am quite certain that had those public pressures not been in place, we would have been much less an ally to Israel during the Obama administration as there is no love lost between Obama and Netanyahu--but that does not mean that the Israelis were confident that the powers of the USA were friends of Israel.

It is sort of like Planned Parenthood enjoying federal funding at the moment, but being nervous that it could be pulled at any time. This example/analogy is in no way comparing Planned Parenthood with Israel.
Click to expand...

What I see is that any departure from complete and uncritical support for Israeli actions/policies by a US president is portrayed by many/all? pro Israeli organisations/commentators as some sort of abandonment/betrayal of Israel and the alliance they share.

I highlighted Friedmans referral to Obama as an " anti-semite " as an example of this type of hysteria .( a practical nailed on accusation btw ) The Israeli lobby in the USA is extremely powerful and they know that should a US administration ever come to power that wished to pull the plug on the support for Israel they wouldn't be able to continue with their serial/ongoing violations of international law nor fund the ongoing illegal settlement of Palestinian land.

The US financial , military and political/diplomatic support of Israel is critical and any perceived drift away from it is met with the usual hysteria

The fact that you had to add the last sentence to the above is just more evidence of how these lunatics have everyone treading on eggshells every time Israel is even mentioned
 
AlbqOwl said:
The ambassador can help negotiate but has zero power and minimal influence to effect policy anywhere he or she serves. The ambassador is our voice to the served nation and their voice back to the U.S. But this sends a very clear message to Netanyahu and the Israelis that Trump meant what he said about being Israel's friend, ally, and they can count on him to be on their side, something they haven't been able to count on for a very long time.

That is also a strong signal to the enemies of Israel who want to hate Israel but be on the good side of the USA. They may actually have to choose between one or the other now.
Click to expand...

Precisely.
 
Aristaeus said:
Donald Trump has named a bankruptcy lawyer who represented the president-elect over his failing hotels in Atlantic City, as the new US ambassador to Israel.

Friedman serves as president of the American Friends of Bet El Institutions, which funds settlements in the West Bank. He disagrees with the general international consensus that the settlements are illegal and he opposes a ban on settlement construction on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem. He has long supported an undivided Jerusalem as the Israeli capital and is opposed to a two-state solution.

The Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz, described Friedman’s views as being on the far right of the Israeli political spectrum, more hardline than prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

“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,” the lawyer said.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/15/trump-israel-ambassador-david-friedman

Goodbye to whatever slim chance there was of peace in the middle east. Pro-settlement and anti two-state solution are not compatible to a peace process. Condoning and encouraging the violation of international law will just antagonise the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

Peace will come in the middle east just as soon as the palistineans tell the extremist terrorist groups to take a hike and start negotiating seriously with Israel. Shooting rockets and suicide bombers into Israeli territory is not and never will get it done. They must give up their desire to exterminate Israel and show that they want to live in peace as a neighboring state.
 
Aristaeus said:
Donald Trump has named a bankruptcy lawyer who represented the president-elect over his failing hotels in Atlantic City, as the new US ambassador to Israel.

Friedman serves as president of the American Friends of Bet El Institutions, which funds settlements in the West Bank. He disagrees with the general international consensus that the settlements are illegal and he opposes a ban on settlement construction on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem. He has long supported an undivided Jerusalem as the Israeli capital and is opposed to a two-state solution.

The Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz, described Friedman’s views as being on the far right of the Israeli political spectrum, more hardline than prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

“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,” the lawyer said.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/15/trump-israel-ambassador-david-friedman

Goodbye to whatever slim chance there was of peace in the middle east. Pro-settlement and anti two-state solution are not compatible to a peace process. Condoning and encouraging the violation of international law will just antagonise the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

The Palestinians should have taken the Oslo deal because their window is now closing. The two state solution will pass into history and the Arab states will abandon the Palestinians as they ally with Israel to confront Iran.

Trump once donated $10,000 to a West Bank Israeli settlement




Yaakov “Katzele” Katz, one of the original settlers of Beit El, said Donald Trump made the donation in honor of his good friend and Jewish adviser David Friedman, now the president-elect’s pick to be the next U.S. ambassador to Israel.



















 
oneworld2 said:
What I see is that any departure from complete and uncritical support for Israeli actions/policies by a US president is portrayed by many/all? pro Israeli organisations/commentators as some sort of abandonment/betrayal of Israel and the alliance they share.

I highlighted Friedmans referral to Obama as an " anti-semite " as an example of this type of hysteria .( a practical nailed on accusation btw ) The Israeli lobby in the USA is extremely powerful and they know that should a US administration ever come to power that wished to pull the plug on the support for Israel they wouldn't be able to continue with their serial/ongoing violations of international law nor fund the ongoing illegal settlement of Palestinian land.

The US financial , military and political/diplomatic support of Israel is critical and any perceived drift away from it is met with the usual hysteria

The fact that you had to add the last sentence to the above is just more evidence of how these lunatics have everyone treading on eggshells every time Israel is even mentioned
Click to expand...

I just don't see it as extremely as you do. When the President of the United States expresses personal support and sympathy for the Palestinians, for instance, while refusing to express similar support and/or sympathy for Israel and when Obama's relationship with Abbas seems far more warm and concilatory than his relationship with Netanyahu, it does create concern for Israel. And the fact that a Palestinian delegation is/was in Washington this very month trying to seal a deal while Obama is still in office suggests they are less confident of the President-elect's position. Obama's deliberate snub of Netanyahu in 2012 and then again last year have not helped reassure Israel that we are their friend.

You describe observance of these things as 'hysteria.' I describe them as observations.

My last sentence in my quoted post was strictly to illustrate the point I was trying to make and should be interpreted as absolutely nothing more than that.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Peace will come in the middle east just as soon as the palistineans tell the extremist terrorist groups to take a hike and start negotiating seriously with Israel. Shooting rockets and suicide bombers into Israeli territory is not and never will get it done. They must give up their desire to exterminate Israel and show that they want to live in peace as a neighboring state.
Click to expand...

As long as the stated goals of Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah and any other Palestinian authority groups have stated goals of wiping Israel from the face of the earth, as long as they place their weapons aimed at Israel among the civilian population, and send spies and terrorists disguised as civilians into Israel, relief for the Palestianian people will have to come from some other source than Israel.

At the bare minimum, ANY negotiations with the Palestinians must start with recognition of Israel's right to exist and cessation of all hostilities of any kind toward Israel. Once the Palestianians are ALL peaceful neighbors of Israel, and Israel does not reciprocate, then the sympathy should be with the Palestinians. And not before.
 
Jack Hays said:
The Palestinians should have taken the Oslo deal because their window is now closing. The two state solution will pass into history and the Arab states will abandon the Palestinians as they ally with Israel to confront Iran.

Trump once donated $10,000 to a West Bank Israeli settlement




Yaakov “Katzele” Katz, one of the original settlers of Beit El, said Donald Trump made the donation in honor of his good friend and Jewish adviser David Friedman, now the president-elect’s pick to be the next U.S. ambassador to Israel.



















Click to expand...

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

:agree: that the Palestinians should have taken the Oslo deal when they had the opportunity to do so. Back in 1948, under international law, the Jewish people were offered a swampy, practically worthless piece of land - that also included desert which today grows orange trees - by the UN to make a home. They accepted the offer, and people around the world laughed. Calling the land Israel, and after years of hard work spent improving the land, the Jewish settlers turned it into a worthwhile place to live.

The Palestinian Arabs, who had no interest in the land originally, suddenly decided they wanted the land back, claiming it was theirs. The Jewish people have been forced to defend themselves in several high-profile wars since then, and have won more land as a result, much of which they have given back after agreements were signed that they will not be attacked again. The Palestinians have no one to blame but themselves, because of their greed coupled with their leaders' inability to honor any agreements they make, which makes it nearly impossible for anyone to negotiate with them in good faith. Sad...
 
Last edited:
polgara said:
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

:agree: that the Palestinians should have taken the Oslo deal when they had the opportunity to do so. Back in 1948, under international law, the Jewish people were offered a swampy, practically worthless piece of land - that also included desert which today grows orange trees - by the UN to make a home. They accepted the offer, and people around the world laughed. Calling the land Israel, and after years of hard work spent improving the land, the Jewish settlers turned it into a worthwhile place to live.

The Palestinian Arabs, who had no interest in the land originally, suddenly decided they wanted the land back, claiming it was theirs. The Jewish people have been forced to defend themselves in several high-profile wars since then, and have won more land as a result, much of which they have given back after agreements were signed that they will not be attacked again. The Palestinians have no one to blame but themselves, because of their greed coupled with their leaders' inability to honor any agreements they make, which makes it nearly impossible for anyone to negotiate with them in good faith. Sad...
Click to expand...

Greetings Polgara.:2wave:

I suspect you'll get some replies.
 
I am very pleased with Trump's pick for the Israeli ambassador. I am also pleased because they seem very committed to moving our embassy to Jerusalem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom