- Home
- About
- General Issues
- Maps
-
Position Statements
- 2011 >
-
2012
>
- Time to Negotiate the Northern and Southern Sectors of the Israeli-West Bank Border
- President Peres and Dr. Ashrawi: Thank You for Staying on Track
- Playing the Victim Card Will Not Bring Peace
- Negotiations By the Parties
- The World Should Help the Palestinian Hunger Striker
- ...and only afterwards move to discuss the topic of Jerusalem
- A Question of Accountability
- Israel Twisting in the Wind
- Netanyahu: Too Big for His Britches
- Netanyahu's "Israeli Comfort"
- How Shaul Mofaz Can Jump-Start the Peace Process
- Netanyahu on the Brink
- Time for Taking Stock
- Israel in Wonderland
- Whatever Happened to the Quartet?
- The Palestinians Want to Negotiate
- A Time for Hope and a Call for Restraint
- Israel Can Win in Gaza, But Not Now
- Congratulations to the New State of Palestine!
- Security and Borders: Both Required for Peace
-
2013
>
- It Is Up to Israel to Restart Peace Negotiations
- Israel and Palestine: Changing the Terms of Agreement
- The Knesset Bill to Increase the Number of Women that Elect the Chief Rabbis Is Important for Jewish Women
- Proposal on Governance of the Holy Basin
- Time for Netanyahu to Reach Across the Aisle
- Tzipi Livni's Challenge
- Women Should Be Free to Pray at the Wailing Wall
- Proposed Highway through the Jordan Valley Will Backfire on Israel
- 2014 >
-
2015
>
- We Should Applaud Herzog and Livni for Reclaiming Zionism
- The Next Israeli Government
- West Bank Citizenry and Receipt of Individuals of Palestinian Origin
- What Next for Israel?
- Palestinian statehood
- Mischief in the Trade Legislation would Hinder Progress
- What Next for America?
- Could American Firms Choose to Gradually Disinvest from Israel?
- Boycotting Israel is not anti-Semitism
- 2016 >
- 2017 >
- 2019 >
- Resources
- About the Authors
The Choice of Friedman as Envoy to Israel Is a Challenge to the Soul of American Judaism
Dr. Andrew Wilson
December 19, 2016
President-elect Donald Trump’s announcement that he will appoint David Friedman as the next U.S. ambassador to Israel poses a challenge to the soul of American Judaism. Friedman is a supporter of Israeli settlements in the West Bank who talks of annexing parts of the West Bank to Israel. He opposes the two-state solution, reportedly calling it an “illusion” and the peace process that successive American administrations have been promoting for three decades “a narrative that needs to end.” As ambassador, he could end America’s historical role as a broker of an Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Friedman, Trump’s long-time bankruptcy lawyer and friend, is an orthodox Jew who claims that Jews have a covenantal right to all the biblical land of Israel. The danger is if the thrust of American policy towards Israel and Palestine comes under his aegis, extreme elements of the Israeli right would have free rein to pursue their goal of annexing the entire West Bank in a “greater Israel.” Even outright theft of Palestinian land, which is at the center of the current kerfuffle over the settlement at Amona, could become commonplace as the Israeli legal system oils the settlement enterprise on an accelerated timetable. The result would be over two million Palestinian residents of the West Bank without civil rights, squeezed off their land, their aspirations for independence dashed. If Trump follows Friedman’s lead to support these changes, four years from now Israel could well look this way.
A single “greater Israel” might cheer many Israelis in the short run, but in the long run it bodes ill for Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. Its Palestinian residents, no longer in the ambiguous position of residents of occupied territory, would demand full and equal citizenship, but the government would likely resist granting it in order to preserve Israel’s Jewish character. The international community would then brand Israel an apartheid state, and history does not give confidence that this situation would endure, if the case of South Africa is any guide.
Conversely, if the Palestinians of “greater Israel,” who may soon outnumber Jewish Israelis, were granted equal citizenship, then sooner or later Israel would become a multicultural state and no longer a Jewish state. That would be a great loss for Judaism.
The move to create “greater Israel” would also degrade Israel’s security, by undermining its diplomatic efforts to make alliances with its moderate Arab neighbors against the threat of Iranian hegemony. Although the pressing conflicts in Syria and against ISIS have relegated the plight of the Palestinians to the sidelines, once they have been resolved this permanent thorn in Arab-Israeli relations is bound to re-emerge. The security of Israel ultimately depends on establishing lasting peace with its Arab neighbors, but even an anti-Iranian coalition that includes Israel will not become a stable reality as long as Palestinian cries for justice continue to ring out.
An authoritarian Israel that makes oppression of the Palestinians a permanent feature of its existence would no longer be perceived by most American Jews as sharing their values. For Jews who love Israel, the contradiction between this dark reality and the Israel of their ideals would be profoundly alienating.
These arguments are all well known, but were entirely theoretical as long as the United States, as Israel’s primary sponsor, was committed to the two-state solution. However, with the appointment of David Friedman, they have become salient. This should be profoundly unsettling to the American Jewish community, which is deeply attached to Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, and who by a large majority believes that pursuing a two-state solution is a worthy goal.
American Jews of conscience need to unite and oppose the appointment of David Friedman, and send a message to president-elect Trump that it expects the U.S. to continue to strive for a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians. As liberal Jewish organizations like J Street and the New Israeli Fund (NIF) gird up to battle the Friedman appointment, we can only imagine the quandary that faces AIPAC, the mainstream pro-Israel lobby. AIPAC has been stalwart in its support of the Israeli government through thick and thin. But this situation is unprecedented.
The appointment Friedman as ambassador to Israel is a challenge to all American Jews. By unleashing forces that could very well undermine Israel’s democratic character, America will end up a troubler of Israel’s soul, tempting it to follow its worst impulses. There’s much at stake. All American Jews need to feel responsible for the U.S. government’s stance toward Israel, that it doesn’t push Israel in a direction inimical to its long-term existence. Therefore, we call on the leaders of all major Jewish organizations to band together to oppose the Friedman appointment.
December 19, 2016
President-elect Donald Trump’s announcement that he will appoint David Friedman as the next U.S. ambassador to Israel poses a challenge to the soul of American Judaism. Friedman is a supporter of Israeli settlements in the West Bank who talks of annexing parts of the West Bank to Israel. He opposes the two-state solution, reportedly calling it an “illusion” and the peace process that successive American administrations have been promoting for three decades “a narrative that needs to end.” As ambassador, he could end America’s historical role as a broker of an Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Friedman, Trump’s long-time bankruptcy lawyer and friend, is an orthodox Jew who claims that Jews have a covenantal right to all the biblical land of Israel. The danger is if the thrust of American policy towards Israel and Palestine comes under his aegis, extreme elements of the Israeli right would have free rein to pursue their goal of annexing the entire West Bank in a “greater Israel.” Even outright theft of Palestinian land, which is at the center of the current kerfuffle over the settlement at Amona, could become commonplace as the Israeli legal system oils the settlement enterprise on an accelerated timetable. The result would be over two million Palestinian residents of the West Bank without civil rights, squeezed off their land, their aspirations for independence dashed. If Trump follows Friedman’s lead to support these changes, four years from now Israel could well look this way.
A single “greater Israel” might cheer many Israelis in the short run, but in the long run it bodes ill for Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. Its Palestinian residents, no longer in the ambiguous position of residents of occupied territory, would demand full and equal citizenship, but the government would likely resist granting it in order to preserve Israel’s Jewish character. The international community would then brand Israel an apartheid state, and history does not give confidence that this situation would endure, if the case of South Africa is any guide.
Conversely, if the Palestinians of “greater Israel,” who may soon outnumber Jewish Israelis, were granted equal citizenship, then sooner or later Israel would become a multicultural state and no longer a Jewish state. That would be a great loss for Judaism.
The move to create “greater Israel” would also degrade Israel’s security, by undermining its diplomatic efforts to make alliances with its moderate Arab neighbors against the threat of Iranian hegemony. Although the pressing conflicts in Syria and against ISIS have relegated the plight of the Palestinians to the sidelines, once they have been resolved this permanent thorn in Arab-Israeli relations is bound to re-emerge. The security of Israel ultimately depends on establishing lasting peace with its Arab neighbors, but even an anti-Iranian coalition that includes Israel will not become a stable reality as long as Palestinian cries for justice continue to ring out.
An authoritarian Israel that makes oppression of the Palestinians a permanent feature of its existence would no longer be perceived by most American Jews as sharing their values. For Jews who love Israel, the contradiction between this dark reality and the Israel of their ideals would be profoundly alienating.
These arguments are all well known, but were entirely theoretical as long as the United States, as Israel’s primary sponsor, was committed to the two-state solution. However, with the appointment of David Friedman, they have become salient. This should be profoundly unsettling to the American Jewish community, which is deeply attached to Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, and who by a large majority believes that pursuing a two-state solution is a worthy goal.
American Jews of conscience need to unite and oppose the appointment of David Friedman, and send a message to president-elect Trump that it expects the U.S. to continue to strive for a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians. As liberal Jewish organizations like J Street and the New Israeli Fund (NIF) gird up to battle the Friedman appointment, we can only imagine the quandary that faces AIPAC, the mainstream pro-Israel lobby. AIPAC has been stalwart in its support of the Israeli government through thick and thin. But this situation is unprecedented.
The appointment Friedman as ambassador to Israel is a challenge to all American Jews. By unleashing forces that could very well undermine Israel’s democratic character, America will end up a troubler of Israel’s soul, tempting it to follow its worst impulses. There’s much at stake. All American Jews need to feel responsible for the U.S. government’s stance toward Israel, that it doesn’t push Israel in a direction inimical to its long-term existence. Therefore, we call on the leaders of all major Jewish organizations to band together to oppose the Friedman appointment.
