Friedman was Trump’s real-estate bankruptcy lawyer and this is presumably his primary qualification for the job, since he has no prior experience in diplomacy. Former Democrat, Joe Lieberman walked in with Friedman, and introduced him along with Lindsey Graham. Lieberman was an early supporter of his candidacy and is a partner at Friedman’s firm.
Palestinian and Jewish-American protestors spoke up during the hearing. The protestors focused on Friedman’s material support for Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank. Incidentally, Jared Kushner’s family foundation has donated to Friedman’s American Friends of Beit-El Yeshiva, which supports a radical West Bank settlement. All the settlements are illegal under the Geneva conventions governing military occupations.
Beit-El, the settlement Friedman funds, is particularly egregious, it lies deep in the West Bank and is constructed almost entirely on private land owned by Palestinians. In 2015, settlers clashed violently with Israeli police and security forces trying to tear down buildings the Israeli high-court had ordered demolished. The settlement began when the Israeli army seized Palestinian lands in 1970 for a military outpost and then subsequently turned it over to Jewish-Israeli settlers. The security pretext is not why Beit-El is significant for the settlement movement.
But Yael Ben Yashar, a longtime resident tour guide, doesn’t see anything mysterious behind the unusual fascination with this one settlement – at least within a certain demographic heavily represented among Trump’s Jewish supporters. “Beit El is mentioned 44 times in the Bible,” she notes, “and this is the place where God promised our forefather Jacob that the Land of Israel would be his. Historically, it is the most important of all the settlements.” — Haaretz
Friedman’s charity has donated tens of millions to this settlement. It’s tax deductible, like the other $220 million dollars sent from the US to West Bank settlements each year. Israel’s parliament passed a law earlier this month that would retroactively legalize these thefts of land from ordinary Palestinians (and any future thefts).
Five former ambassadors to Israel wrote to the Senate committee, saying Friedman was, in their view, unqualified:
The ambassadors, who served Republican and Democratic presidents, say Friedman accused President Barack Obama and the entire State Department of anti-Semitism. They say he's also characterized supporters of J Street, a liberal Jewish group, as "kapos," the Jews who cooperated with Nazis during the Holocaust. — Associated Press
The article that contains this statement was published in Arutz Sheva, the right-wing Israeli paper, and here’s the paragraph:
Finally, are J Street supporters really as bad as kapos? The answer, actually, is no. They are far worse than kapos – Jews who turned in their fellow Jews in the Nazi death camps. The kapos faced extraordinary cruelty and who knows what any of us would have done under those circumstances to save a loved one? But J Street? 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.
The full transcript and video of the hearing are at C-Span.
The senate committee’s questions focused on his insults to liberal Jewish-Americans, jewish-American organizations, and Democratic politicians. They didn’t really touch on Friedman’s activity in the settlement, even though there was a lot they could have asked on the subject. For example, a building dedicated and funded by David Friedman, the “Friedman Faculty House” at Beit-El was built on privately-owned Palestinian land expropriated by settlers:
Construction on the Friedman Faculty House began in 1999. In 2002, a demolition order was issued against it by the Defense Ministry’s Civil Administration, which supervises construction in the settlements. Although it has been ignored, demolition order No. 224/02, according to Civil Administration records, is still on the books. The Palestinian landowners and their heirs have tried several times to reclaim the land and have the buildings removed, but to no avail. [...]
A copy of the original deed for that plot, obtained by Haaretz, shows that the owners are Palestinians from the nearby village of Dura al-Qara. [...]
Almost the entire settlement of Beit El was built on private Palestinian land. The older neighborhoods, however, were constructed under special military orders that are difficult to contest in court. Beit El is located near the Palestinian city of Ramallah and is not part of the big settlement blocs. It is, therefore, not expected to be incorporated into Israel under any future peace agreement. — Haaretz
Haaretz in an editorial firmly opposed Friedman’s nomination, writing “From all that is known of the man and his positions, this is a miserable choice”. Even reliably right-wing sites have noted just how unusual Friedman’s views are for a potential ambassador.
A website connected to Friedman's fundraising group describes Beit El's institutions as "'facts on the ground' in the face of the international community's desire to uproot us."
Such views are unprecedented for U.S. ambassadors to Israel, who in the past, whether from Republican or Democratic administrations, have avoided travel to settlements. — Fox News
Democratic senators expressed skepticism in various forms towards Friedman’s nomination. Most Republicans seemed intent to re-iterate right-wing Israeli talking points. Ron Johnson’s (R-WI) testimony is a good example, he actually asked “if you were forced to move to a country in the middle-east, which one would it be”. Then answered it himself by saying Israel. It provided an opportunity for Friedman to take a gratuitous dig at the BDS movement. Marco Rubio (R-FL) decided he felt really bad that Friedman was being grilled for every word he might have said. He also didn’t like the expectation of “smart people” that the US should be “fair” towards all parties in the region. I’m pretty certain Rubio’s trying to rebrand himself as a “not-smart” person to enhance his appeal to the Trumpian base.
Todd Young (R-IN) sought fit to talk about his experience in a military unit operating drones that had Israeli components. Young did not, of course, share how these drones are used by Israel in its pervasive surveillance of Palestinians, among other things. Markey (D-MA) said that Friedman walked him through a scenario where the West Bank was incorporated into Israel. During the hearing, Friedman backed away from that and said it was a hypothetical. Markey pointedly questioned whether Palestinians would ever accept such an outcome that doesn’t include Gaza. Markey did ask a couple of questions about Beit-El.
Sen. Coons (D-DE) asked pointedly whether Friedman would advocate for annexation of the West Bank. Friedman was asked repeatedly whether he supported the two-state solution and during this hearing he said he did, though previously he has publicly expressed opposition to a two-state solution.
Bob Corker (R-TN) who chairs the committee had an interesting question:
SEN CORKER: You are here today having to recant every single strongly held belief that you have expressed. Almost. And I am just curious about this job and its importance to you to be willing to recant every single strongly held belief that you had. I wonder if you would share that with us because it is interesting to listen -- you have done a lot of that and I appreciate that. Sometimes, when people run for public office, they say things and they have to massage them to a degree but this is fairly extraordinary. I wonder if you would share with us why you would be willing to do that to serve in this capacity.
I thought it was a good question for Corker to ask. Corker also asked whether a Palestinian state with Israeli settlements and a permanent Israeli military presence would be called a “state minus”. He may be an interesting vote to watch.
I do wish a Senator had asked Friedman a question along these lines:
“Mr Friedman, do you believe Israel is an occupying power in the West Bank, and if so, do you understand what an occupying power can and cannot do with respect to the territory it occupies.”
“Do you believe Israel’s transfer of its population to occupied territory and its use of land and resources in the West Bank for commercial activity, including farming, use of water, and industry is legal?”
“How do you reconcile this with President Trump’s repeated statements that as an occupying power, the US should have ‘taken the oil’”?
But no one asked that question. Nor were any of the questions Haaretz suggested to the senators in an article brought up. One of them was whether Friedman had children who lived in Israel or served or intended to serve in the IDF.
Tom Udall’s (D-NM) prepared remarks are interesting though, and worth a read in full. Here’s a snippet:
SEN. UDALL: [...]
"Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I am strongly opposed to this nominee. I believe Secretary Tillerson and President Trump should recognize that Mr. Friedman is completely unfit for this or any other diplomatic office and withdraw him immediately. If not, I strongly recommend that this committee not recommend him for confirmation.
"Mr. Friedman does not represent American values in the region. That is evident from his past statements. And they are not random ‘off the cuff' remarks. Much of his offensive, inflammatory, and insulting rhetoric has been reported in the newspapers, and repeated over and over.
"He has called for an arbitrary ban on many Muslims entering the country. Mr. Friedman has stated that Muslims should submit internet and telecommunications activity for inspection, that there is ‘no need to worry about the First Amendment,' and that, ‘the rights of free speech do not apply' to Muslims attempting to enter our country.
"Mr. Chairman and colleagues, just last week the Republican majority chose to censure a colleague under Senate Rule 19 for ‘imputing' bad conduct by a Senator.
"Well, if we truly care whether senators are maligned, we should look at Mr. Friedman's words. He has insulted and denigrated members of the Senate, including Senator Schumer and Senator Franken.
"Mr. Friedman said, ‘No matter how he ultimately votes, by making his decision such a close call - which it plainly should not be - Schumer is validating the worst appeasement of terrorism since Munich.' [...]
"For the record, Mr. Friedman has also said that liberal Jews, ‘suffer a cognitive disconnect in identifying good and evil.' [...]
"It is clear that Mr. Friedman's appointment would represent a profound break with decades of U.S. foreign policy supporting a two-state solution - and resisting illegal settlements that make such a solution more remote. President Reagan said settlement activity was in ‘no way necessary for the security of Israel, and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be freely and fairly negotiated.'
"I wonder, were President Reagan here today, would Mr. Friedman label him as anti-Semitic?
"Mr. Friedman is profoundly unfit to lead members of the State Department. He accuses many of them of being behind ‘over 100 years of anti-Semitism.'
"I say this as a friend of Israel, who has always supported military aid to defend her borders. If we confirm him, we are running a dangerous risk that Mr. Friedman will inflame a volatile situation, and other foreign governments. We need a steady hand in the Middle East, not another bomb thrower in a position of high power and responsibility.” [...]
"If the majority wants to jam through all of President Trump's diplomatic nominees, they probably can. But I would urge them to caucus in private and talk to the president's team to see if we can move in a different direction."