Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 51 (Thursday, March 23, 2017)

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 51 (Thursday, March 23, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1955-S1958]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of David
Friedman, of New York, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Israel.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I would like to talk about U.S. support
for Israel. It used to be that U.S. support for Israel was bipartisan.
One of the most deeply disappointing realities in Washington today is
that this support is becoming characterized as increasingly partisan.
That is because--what happened was Republicans came out against one of
President Obama's signature foreign policy achievements, the Iran
nuclear deal.
That opposition came in the face of consensus among national security
experts across the political spectrum, both here and in Israel, that
this deal was good for the security of Israel. Ultimately, what
happened is, it politicized our foreign policy in the Middle East to
the point that what would have otherwise been a bipartisan vote for a
bipartisan consensus Ambassador to the country of Israel from the
United States, will now be confirmed along mostly party lines.
People will look at this confirmation and say: U.S. support for
Israel now exists largely on a partisan basis. Let's be clear. It does
not. I support every penny that goes to Israel. I think it is critical
that the country maintains its qualitative military edge in the region,
and I take a backseat to no one in my personal or professional passion
for the United States-Israel relationship.
That is why I cannot support Mr. Friedman's nomination to be the U.S.
Ambassador to Israel. He has radical views. He has made outrageous and
offensive statements on a wide range of issues.
Here is a sampling of his past comments. Mr. Friedman has said that
the State Department is anti-Semitic. He has said that President Obama
is an anti-Semite. He has said that the two-state solution solves a
``nonexistent problem.'' Mr. Friedman has called for Israeli citizens
who are Arabs to be stripped of their civil rights. He has lobbed one
of the worst words in Jewish history at large parts of the American
Jewish community, calling them ``kapos,'' which is a term for the Jews
who worked for the Nazis in concentration camps. These are more than
just provocative statements by Mr. Friedman; they are lies.
For decades, the United States has stood firm as an honest broker of
peace. We have said to both sides that they can trust us to help end
this conflict, and that is based on the principle that the United
States is passionate about peace in Israel but dispassionate about how
we get there. Mr. Friedman is not objective about how we get there. On
the contrary, he is very passionately for settlements, and he is very
passionately against the two-state solution, which means he is
basically against decades of bipartisan U.S. foreign policy.
Just a few months ago, the organization he led advertised that they
have a new program that will train students to ``successfully
delegitimize the notion of a two-state solution.'' This group is
actively working to take the two-state solution off the table.
I understand that the Senate is not fully aligned on U.S. foreign
policy when it comes to Israel. I understand we have our disagreements.
We may disagree on whether a two-state solution is best, on where our
Embassy should be located, and on how to approach the peace process,
but there are some things we ought to be able to agree upon: that our
Ambassador to Israel should not be more involved in Israel's politics
than our own, that our Ambassador to Israel should not be so
provocative that they wouldn't even be welcome at the negotiating
table, and that our Ambassador should not be the kind of person who
uses language to fuel violence, hate, and instability. That means we
should be able to agree that our Ambassador to Israel cannot be Mr.
Friedman.

[[Page S1956]]

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no to support U.S.-Israel
relations and reject Mr. Friedman's confirmation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, the Middle East poses some of the most
difficult diplomatic challenges faced by our Nation. The region is
troubled, unstable, sometimes dangerous. Conflicts span over centuries.
Peace throughout the region seems distant and far away. And the
problematic powers, like Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Russia, promote
their own interests in the area, sometimes violently, and those
interests are often contrary to ours.
The United States is deeply involved throughout the region. Israel is
America's staunchest ally in the Middle East and one of our closest
friends on the world stage. The United States has had and will continue
to have a special relationship with Israel, and our country will
continue to protect and aid Israel to help secure her survival.
I am a strong supporter of Israel. I believe that a qualitative
military edge is necessary for the safety of Israel, and I have always
voted to support military aid. I have also been a strong supporter of
the two-state solution. A peaceful resolution between Israel and the
Palestinian people would help heal the source of many of the
insecurities facing Israel, but peace has eluded Israel and the
Palestinians for decades. Mutual distrust runs deep. Tensions are high
between Israel and many of its neighbors.
For all these reasons, the ambassadorship to Israel is one of the
State Department's most important diplomatic posts and one of the most
sensitive. Since Israel became a nation, the post has been held by 18
of some of our most experienced, skilled, and knowledgeable diplomats.
The vast majority were career Foreign Service officers. Many served in
both Republican and Democratic administrations. All had significant
international and government experience prior to their appointment.
The Ambassador to Israel must be able to thread the needle between
Israel and its neighbors. He or she needs to have the confidence,
respect, and trust of powers throughout the region. He or she must be
seen as an honest broker and have the temperament and finesse to defuse
conflict while able to stand one's ground and have the capacity to find
common interests and common ground.
However, with David Friedman, the President has put forth a nominee
who has no diplomatic experience whatsoever, no government or
international experience, who is known for his offensive statements
toward Jewish groups and others with whom he disagrees, and who has
repeatedly expressed extreme policy views--views antagonistic to any
realistic peace process with the Palestinians. Mr. Friedman is not a
seasoned diplomat; he is the President's bankruptcy lawyer. President
Trump and Mr. Friedman clearly have a lot of experience with
bankruptcy, but it is hard to think of a pair of personalities less
suited to diplomacy in a volatile region.
Mr. Friedman has vocally opposed a two-state solution--a cornerstone
of U.S. foreign policy for peace in the region since President Ronald
Reagan. He not only supports but has generously funded Israeli
settlements--settlements long considered as an obstacle to peace by the
United States and deemed illegal by much of the international
community.
Mr. Friedman's intemperate remarks have been widely reported. He
lashed out that liberal Jews ``suffer a cognitive disconnect in
identifying good and evil.'' He said that the State Department has
``[a] hundred-year history of anti-Semitism'' and that President Obama
is ``an anti-Semite.'' Most horrific, he said:

J-Street supporters . . . are far worse than kapos--Jews
who turned in their fellow Jews in the Nazi death camps. . .
. They are just smug advocates of Israel's destruction
delivered from the comfort of their secure American sofas--
it's hard to imagine anyone worse.

Five former U.S. Ambassadors to Israel, serving under both Democratic
and Republican administrations, called Mr. Friedman ``unqualified'' to
assume the role of chief diplomat to Israel.
Twenty-nine Holocaust scholars objected to his ``kapo'' remarks. The
historical record shows, they said, ``that kapos were Jews whom the
Nazis forced, at the pain of death, to serve them in the concentration
and extermination camps. . . . These Jews faced terrible dilemmas, but
ultimately were made into unwilling tools of Nazi brutality. . . . To
brand one's political opponents, members of one's own community, as
kapos, merely for engaging in legitimate debate, is historically
indefensible and is a deeply disturbing example of the abuse of the
Holocaust and its victims for present political gain.''
A group of Holocaust survivors called his use of ``kapo''--and I
quote a group of Holocaust survivors--``slanderous, insulting,
irresponsible, cynical and immensely damaging to our people.''
More than 600 rabbis wrote that his remarks were ``the very
antithesis of the diplomatic behavior Americans expect from their
ambassadors.''
While Mr. Friedman apologized during his confirmation hearing for his
abusive language, I don't believe it erases his past behavior and
suddenly qualifies him for the job.
This post should be earned over time, through actions and words that
demonstrate without question that the nominee has the right judgment,
temperament, and skills. Mr. Friedman has not come close to
demonstrating that. We should not risk confirming him to this important
post. We have seen how distracting and destructive hotheadedness is at
the seat of power.
During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Friedman also walked back his
positions on a two-state solution and Israeli settlements, which
prompted the committee chair to wryly ask him why he even wants the
Ambassador position if he has to ``recant every single strong belief
you've had.''
I am a strong supporter of Israel. I want to see the State of Israel
prosperous and secure forever into the future. I believe in the right
of the Palestinians to self-determination, to chart their own course
and their destiny. I want to see peace between Israel and the
Palestinians and between Israel and her neighbors. That is what the
vast majority of Americans want. The United States has a strong
national interest in securing this peace. The last thing we need is
another active military conflict in the Middle East, which could draw
in U.S. forces. That is why over 40 years U.S. policy has held that the
only realistic path to peace is through a two-state solution. The
Palestinians are entitled to a homeland. A two-state solution is the
only viable path forward for Israel.
As Secretary Kerry said, ``If the choice is one state, Israel can
either be Jewish or democratic. It cannot be both.''
Given Mr. Friedman's past staunch support for a one-state solution
and expansion of Israeli settlements, is he really ready and able to
embrace and put forward opposing policy positions? Can he ever be
viewed by the Palestinians and the international community as an honest
broker?
I am under no illusion about how difficult it will be to achieve
peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Many Presidents and able
diplomats have tried and failed to achieve settlement. But the United
States must continue to do its best to reach an accord. Above all, we
should not make the current situation worse. We need a steady hand in
the Middle East.
I am not convinced that Mr. Friedman is qualified for this job, with
no diplomatic experience and a history of extreme positions and
intemperate language. His contrition is too little, too late. I am
worried that by ignoring these huge red flags with his nomination, we
run the risk of a diplomatic incident that could needlessly increase
risk of conflict in the region. Therefore, I must vote no on this
nomination.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about President
Trump's selection of David Friedman to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to
Israel.
Our relationship with Israel is of tremendous importance. We are
strong allies, and we have a strong military, diplomatic, economic, and
cultural relationship with the State of Israel. As a Jew, the
importance of that relationship is something that I feel in my bones,
and as a Senator, working to

[[Page S1957]]

make our relationship with Israel stronger is a major priority. I
strongly believe that part of strengthening that relationship is doing
everything we can to help make progress toward a peaceful resolution of
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Helping to resolve that conflict has
consistently been one of the top diplomatic priorities of the United
States.
There are very important implications in this selection for the
Israeli people, the Palestinian people, the Middle East region, and
even beyond. We need an Ambassador who can rise to the challenge,
someone who can bring the parties together for negotiations and be
regarded as legitimate in the eyes of all parties. Mr. Friedman is not
that man.
Mr. Friedman's past conduct demonstrates that he lacks the tools one
needs to be a good diplomat. For starters, diplomacy is about choosing
your words carefully. It is about reasoning with those with whom you
disagree. Diplomacy means not resorting to insults and to name-calling
when you have a disagreement, which is something that Mr. Friedman has
done time and time and time again.

In an op-ed he penned for the newspaper Arutz Sheva, Mr. Friedman
called supporters of the American Jewish Organization J Street ``far
worse than kapos.''
Now, for those who don't share the history, I was born in 1951, and I
grew up with the holocaust and the stories of the holocaust pounded
into my head, and I know what ``kapos'' are. It is the term that refers
to Jews who collaborated with the Nazis--with the Gestapo, the guards
at the concentration camps during the holocaust. When asked to
repudiate his statement on J Street, Mr. Friedman refused, and in fact
doubled down, stating ``They're not Jewish, and they are not pro-
Israel.'' For those who don't know, J Street is a pro-Israel
organization dedicated to the two-state solution--a goal that is shared
by successive U.S. administrations, both Democratic and Republican. The
two-state solution is the only way to keep Israel a Jewish State and a
democracy.
Mr. Friedman's smearing of our fellow Jews--my fellow Jews, many of
whom are members of J Street, this is a calumny. This should be a
disqualifier for someone seeking to represent the United States in the
State of Israel. Mr. Friedman's statement shows that he lacks
understanding of history--of our history, the history of the Jewish
people--it shows he is intolerant of opposing views, and he is
profoundly insensitive. That is probably why so many of my fellow Jews
have reached out to me, have urged me to reject his nomination.
Mr. Friedman's offensive remarks don't stop there. He regularly
insults those with whom he disagrees. He even called me a clown and a
moron after I pointed out the anti-Semitic stereotypes evoked in the
Trump campaign's final ad. As I told Mr. Friedman when we met in my
office, I have been called a moron before--that kind of thing happens
in campaigns all the time--but as I also reminded him, part of being a
diplomat is being diplomatic.
Now, while I have serious concerns with Mr. Friedman's temperament,
my biggest issue with this nominee is his lack of commitment to the
peace process. For example, right after being nominated to serve as
Ambassador, Mr. Friedman stated that he ``looked forward to doing this
from the U.S. embassy in Israel's eternal capital, Jerusalem.''
It has been a longstanding policy of the United States to recognize
Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel. This policy has been viewed by
successive administrations as important for helping maintain regional
stability and peace with Israel and its neighbors. An abrupt change in
this tradition would make it more difficult for the United States to
play the role of arbiter, to achieve peace and security between the
Israelis and the Palestinians. At a time when we need to reduce
tensions in the region, Mr. Friedman was sending the exact wrong
message. What I find even more troubling is Mr. Friedman's support for
settlement building. Successive U.S. administrations have recognized
that new settlements are barriers to peace. Mr. Friedman has served as
president and has been actively fundraising for the American Friends of
Beit El, the nonprofit that supports the expansion of that settlement--
expansion which is illegal under international law, an expansion deep
inside of Palestinian territory.
How can we possibly help advance peace between the two parties with a
man who believes there ought to be more settlements--one of the very
things that observers on both sides of this conflict recognize as a
significant obstacle to peace. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has
remained intractable for far too long, proving a hardship--a tragedy--
for Israelis and Palestinians both and impacting regional and even
global security. I believe--I am convinced that a just and lasting
agreement between the two parties on a two-state solution, though very
difficult, can and must be achieved. Confirming David Friedman as
Ambassador of the United States to Israel will only serve to make that
job more difficult, if not impossible, and in my mind would be a
tragedy.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Friedman nomination.
I thank the Presiding Officer.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Senate will soon vote on the nomination of
David Friedman to be U.S. Ambassador to Israel.
I oppose his nomination.
Mr. Friedman has made a career of derogatory and inflammatory
statements about U.S. policy in the Middle East, about former U.S.
officials, about the Palestinians, and about American Jews who have
views that differ from his own.
He has written falsely that President Obama and Secretary Kerry
engaged in ``blatant anti-Semitism,'' that liberal American Jews are
``far worse than kapos,'' and that they ``suffer a cognitive disconnect
in identifying good and evil.''
He has accused the State Department of a ``hundred-year history of
anti-Semitism,'' apparently because diplomats in both Republican and
Democratic administrations have not always agreed with the actions of
some of Israel's leaders.
Those comments alone should disqualify him for this sensitive
position.
Mr. Friedman has also raised millions of dollars for Israeli settlers
and bragged about leading the effort to remove the two-state solution
from the Republican Party's platform.
Regarding the two-state solution, he wrote that it is ``an illusion
that serves the worst intentions of both the United States and the
Palestinian Arabs.'' That renunciation of longstanding U.S. policy
should also, by itself, disqualify him for the job of Ambassador to
Israel.
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 going back as far as President Reagan, say
the answer is no.
An alliance as longstanding as ours with Israel, which has far-
reaching consequences for the entire Middle East, requires effective
daily management by an experienced diplomat who not only has knowledge
of the region but the temperament and appreciation of our short- and
long-term interests.
I do not see how anyone could conclude that Mr. Friedman possesses
the requisite temperament or objectivity. The record is devoid of
evidence that he appreciates the critical distinction between the
interests of the United States and the parochial interests of an
extreme constituency in Israel that he has fiercely advocated for over
the course of his long career.
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 disavowed his past undiplomatic statements,
saying he was speaking as a private citizen.
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
interests of the American people.
We all want what is best for the American people. We also share a
desire to find a viable solution to the

[[Page S1958]]

Israeli-Palestinian conflict that protects the rights and security of
both peoples.
Neither goal can be achieved by pursuing policies that further
inflame tensions and erode the role of the United States as an honest
broker for peace.
There are any number of qualified Americans who could capably support
that role. Mr. Friedman is not among them.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, our Ambassador to Israel is one of our
most consequential diplomatic posts. Israel is our greatest friend and
ally in the Middle East and one of our closest partners in the world.
The bonds between our peoples have been unbreakable from Israel's
beginning. Israel is a bastion of democracy and prosperity in a violent
and unstable region, where Israel faces relentless threats to its
security. It is imperative that our Ambassador to Israel have an even
temperament, the utmost of integrity, and the ability to forge unity
across entrenched divisions.
I have a profound and steadfast commitment to Israel and to the
Jewish community. That is why I am so concerned with David Friedman's
nomination to become Ambassador to Israel.
Mr. Friedman appears to have few, if any, of the qualities needed for
this position. He is an extraordinarily polarizing figure who has
expressed views far outside of the longstanding bipartisan consensus on
Israel. His body of published work makes clear his extreme positions.
Mr. Friedman has asserted that Israel cannot trust the majority of
American Jews. He has accused the entire State Department--an
institution he now seeks to join--of anti-Semitism. He has called our
coalition allies and partners in the fight against the Islamic State
``cowards,'' ``hypocrites,'' and ``freeloaders.'' Given his radical and
divisive rhetoric, I do not believe that he is capable of forging unity
at home or stability abroad.
Furthermore, Mr. Friedman has written that he does not believe in a
two-state solution. For decades, through Democratic and Republican
administrations alike, the United States and the international
community have held that the two-state solution is the only way to
achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Mr.
Friedman's position on the two-state solution, coupled with his
offensive statements, led five former U.S. Ambassadors to Israel to
urge the Senate not to confirm him.
Shimon Peres, one of Israel's greatest leaders, once said, ``Our
problem is not to submit to the differences but to overcome them.''
Americans and Israelis deserve nothing less than an Ambassador who
lives up to this ethos, one who seeks to strengthen Israel by advancing
peace in the region. Given Mr. Friedman's public statements, I doubt
that he can be that person. For these reasons, I cannot support his
nomination.
Mr. FRANKEN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding rule XXII, at 2:15 p.m., the Senate vote on the
Friedman nomination and that, if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be
considered made and laid upon the table and the President be
immediately notified of the Senate's action with no intervening action
or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for a period of 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.