[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 43 (Monday, March 13, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1756-S1757]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                      Nomination of David Friedman

  Mr. President, the Senate will soon consider the nomination of David 
Friedman to be U.S. Ambassador to Israel. Unlike several of President 
Trump's other nominees, we know a great deal about Mr. Friedman's views 
on the challenges he would confront if he were confirmed. 
Unfortunately, this is because he has made a career of disparaging and 
inflammatory statements about U.S. policy in the Middle East, about 
former U.S. officials, about the Palestinians, even about American Jews 
who have views that differ from his own.
  We have all had the opportunity to read articles Mr. Friedman has 
written. We have heard the outrageous, unfounded verbal attacks he has 
launched against those who disagree with him. He has written falsely 
that President Obama and Secretary Kerry engaged in ``blatant anti-
Semitism,'' that the liberal American Jews are ``far worse than 
kapos,'' and that they ``suffer a cognitive disconnect in identifying 
good and evil,'' that the State Department has a ``hundred-year history 
of anti-Semitism,'' because diplomats appointed by both Republican 
Presidents and Democratic Presidents have not always seen eye-to-eye on 
every issue with Israel's leaders. He has said that Israel's policy of 
``criticizing disloyal Arab citizens while simultaneously bestowing 
upon them the benefits of citizenship simply isn't working.''
  Well, those comments alone should disqualify him for this sensitive 
position, and it is no surprise that tens of thousands of Americans 
have signed petitions circulated by pro-Israel groups opposing his 
nomination.
  Mr. Friedman has also raised millions of dollars for Israeli 
settlers, and he has bragged about the effort to remove the two-state 
solution from the Republican Party's platform, even though Democratic 
and Republican Presidents have supported it. Regarding the two-state 
solution, he wrote: ``It is more of an illusion that serves the worst 
intentions of both the United States and the Palestinian Arabs,'' in 
one of the many articles he has written for a rightwing Israeli media 
outlet. That unequivocal renunciation of longstanding U.S. policy 
should also by itself disqualify him from the job of Ambassador to 
Israel.
  These statements and actions not only indicate his rejection of 
decades of Republican and Democratic policy. They are the words of 
someone who makes a mockery of the term ``diplomat'' and who has 
demonstrated no ability to be objective and constructive on sensitive 
issues of immense importance to U.S. security.
  Our diplomats are supposed to be representing the American people and 
the policies of the United States first and foremost. They are not sent 
to a foreign country to represent the government or people of that 
country in a

[[Page S1757]]

manner that is inconsistent with U.S. policies and U.S. interests. They 
are there to represent us.
  Mr. Friedman is certainly entitled to his own views as a private 
citizen, even if they are offensive and counter to U.S. interests and 
values. But can anyone honestly say that this nominee is qualified or 
suited to represent the American people in Israel?
  Five former U.S. Ambassadors to Israel who served under Republican 
and Democratic Presidents--from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama--are 
among the thousands of Americans who say that the answer to that 
questions is no.
  We are being asked to reconcile Mr. Friedman's record, his personal 
views, and his deep ties to extreme factions in Israel with his 
responsibility to objectively advance and defend U.S. interests. Unless 
one believes, as he has repeatedly made clear he does, that the 
interests of the United States are always identical to Israel's, there 
is no way Mr. Friedman should be confirmed.
  For as long as I have been in the Senate--and I note that is longer 
than anybody who is serving here now--I cannot recall a time when we 
were not at a critical point in our relations with Israel, not because 
of doubts about the enduring value of the relationship but as a 
reflection of the importance of the deep partnership between our 
governments and our people--a deep partnership that we have all 
supported and that Republican and Democratic Presidents have supported. 
Most importantly, it is a result of our conviction that security, 
stability, and prosperity in Israel and the wider region are important 
to our own national security.
  That is why President Obama signed a memorandum of understanding with 
Israel that included the single largest pledge of U.S. military aid to 
any country--to any country anywhere in the world, ever--and why both 
Democratic and Republican administrations have put so much effort into 
pursuing peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
  An alliance as longstanding as ours with Israel, which has far-
reaching consequences for the entire Middle East and beyond, requires 
effective daily management by an experienced diplomat who has not only 
knowledge of the region but the necessary temperament and appreciation 
of our country's short- and long-term interests.
  I was here when President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin negotiated 
what was a very difficult peace agreement between the two of them, with 
both of them putting the interests of the region first. That agreement 
has lasted. I also remember when Prime Minister Rabin and King Hussein 
of Jordan--who had fought against each other--personally negotiated a 
peace agreement, and the United States strongly supported that. In 
fact, I was privileged to be there when they signed the agreement at 
Aqaba, as I was present when Prime Minister Begin and President Sadat 
signed their agreement.
  I do not see how anyone could conclude that Mr. Friedman possesses 
the requisite temperament, nor am I convinced that he appreciates the 
critical distinction between the interests of our country, the United 
States, and the parochial interests of an extreme constituency in 
Israel who he has fiercely advocated for over the course of his long 
career.
  Indeed, it is telling that the spokesman for Beit El, the Israeli 
settlement that Mr. Friedman has supported financially for years, said 
its inhabitants would regard him as their representative in the United 
States. These are Israelis. Their representative in the United States 
is the Israeli Ambassador. It is not the role of a U.S. Ambassador to 
represent another country, but that is how Mr. Friedman is perceived in 
Israel because that is the way he has behaved.
  Every U.S. President has understood the importance and the heightened 
sensitivity of this post, and they chose their nominees accordingly--
both Republican and Democratic Presidents--until now. That is why every 
previous nominee to be Ambassador to Israel has been confirmed by a 
voice vote or by unanimous consent, while Mr. Friedman was voted out by 
a narrow 12 to 9--largely party line vote--in the Foreign Relations 
Committee.
  Mr. Friedman's confirmation hearing provided him the opportunity to 
assuage concerns about his divisiveness, including the many disparaging 
remarks he has made and his close identification with and support for 
the Israeli settler movement.
  During the hearing he renounced his undiplomatic language, suggesting 
it was delivered in the heat of the election cycle and in his capacity 
as a private citizen. In fact, he recanted so much of what he had 
said--which far predates the election cycle--that Foreign Relations 
Committee Chairman Corker asked why he was willing to disavow so much 
of his past record in order to earn the committee's support.
  In response, Mr. Friedman described the role of the U.S. Ambassador 
to Israel as ``the fulfillment of a life's dream, of a life's work, of 
a life of study of the people, the culture, the politics of Israeli 
society.''
  I would say two things about that. One, I recall a nominee for 
another position who, when asked questions about extreme positions he 
had taken for years, started disavowing them all, and I finally asked 
him: Are you having a confirmation conversion? That nominee--the 
nominee of a Republican President--when he came before the Senate, was 
defeated because of Republican votes, as well as Democratic votes.
  I always worry about a confirmation conversion. When a nominee 
rejects years and years of deeply held beliefs during those 2 or 3 days 
of the confirmation hearing, I wonder how long it will last.
  There is an important distinction between knowing and respecting a 
country's history and people and believing that one's own personal 
ambition and that country's interests are inextricably linked. Mr. 
Friedman's remarkable confirmation conversion falls far short of 
convincing evidence that changing his title to ``Ambassador'' will 
cause him to divorce his life's work and objectively serve the national 
interests of the United States.
  If Mr. Friedman is confirmed, he should immediately untangle his 
business and personal interests in Israel and commit to being the 
representative of all Americans--conservative and liberal Jews, 
conservative and liberal non-Jews--and being a genuine partner in 
efforts to promote security and stability for Israelis and Palestinians 
alike, not just because it is in their interests, but because it is in 
the interest of the United States.
  We all want what is best for the American people. We also share a 
desire to find a viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 
that protects the rights and security of both peoples. Neither goal can 
be achieved by pursuing policies that further inflame tensions in the 
region and erode the role of the United States as an honest broker for 
peace. There are a large number of qualified Americans from both 
parties who could capably support that role. Mr. Friedman is not among 
them.