CNN's Chris Cuomo contended on Monday's New Day that Trump's pick for ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, is "one of the most controversial choices the President-Elect has made for his Cabinet." Cuomo labeled Friedman "hardliner" or "hardline" during a segment with former Ambassador Martin Indyk. He also pointed out the "very controversial territory" of the would-be diplomat supporting moving the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and oddly highlighted that "the Christians lay claim to Jerusalem." [video below]
The anchor launched his interview of Indyk with his "one of the most controversial choices" and "hardliner" terms about Friedman. He introduced his guest as the "former...ambassador to Israel and former U.S. special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations." However, he failed to mention that Indyk had this role under former President Bill Clinton. An on-screen graphic during the segment also identified Indyk as the executive V.P. of the left-leaning Brookings Institution, but the journalist omitted this detail as well.
Cuomo first noted that Friedman is "not known to have any diplomatic experience. He is a bankruptcy attorney who helped Trump with his bankruptcies in Atlantic City." He asked the former Clinton administration official, "His [Friedman's] legal acumen aside, what do you see in his background that gives you questions?" Indyk replied, in part, that "in the context of such a sensitive post, [Friedman has] raised questions [on] whether he will able to be the U.S. ambassador to all of Israel or just one part of it."
The CNN journalist brought up the embassy issue near the end of the segment:
CHRIS CUOMO: ...Friedman says he will move the embassy. Obviously, he doesn't decide; but he looks forward to doing it out of the new embassy location for the U.S. in Jerusalem. Now, that's very controversial territory. The Christians lay claim to Jerusalem. The Jews, obviously, lay claim. Even the Muslims have tried to pull out some cultural precedent for their presence there. What does that mean about wanting to move the embassy?
<<< Please support MRC's NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>
Indyk emphasized that "the United States has not been prepared to recognize as Israel's capital...Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1967; and so, moving the capital there would imply that the United States was recognizing Israeli sovereignty over all of Jerusalem — including the Arab part." He added that "it's a very provocative move in the current circumstances; and for that reason, Israeli governments have not been making an issue out of it." Cuomo replied to this by stating that "it is unusual, to say the least, that the U.S. ambassador seems to be more hardline on Israeli issues than Israel itself."
The full transcript of Chris Cuomo's interview of Martin Indyk on the December 19, 2016 edition of CNN's New Day:
CHRIS CUOMO: One of the most controversial choices the President-Elect has made for his Cabinet is hardliner David Friedman as his choice for ambassador to Israel. Many are questioning what his strong opinions and opposition to the two-state solution will do to U.S. policy in the Middle East.
Joining us now to discuss is former ambassador — U.S. ambassador to Israel and former U.S. special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, Martin Indyk. Good to see you, sir.
MARTIN INDYK, FMR. U.S. AMBASSADOR TO ISRAEL (via Skype): Good morning.
[CNN Graphic: "Trump Makes Controversial Pick For Israeli Ambassador"]
CUOMO: So there are three basic points of pushback. The first is the experience of Friedman — not known to have any diplomatic experience. He is a bankruptcy attorney who helped Trump with his bankruptcies in Atlantic City. His legal acumen aside, what do you see in his background that gives you questions?
INDYK: Well, that's the first one. It's an important one, because the post of ambassador to Israel is an extremely sensitive one. It's normally held either by Foreign Service officers who have diplomatic experience; or people like me with political experience, but — but knowledge of — of the issues. It's not clear that David Friedman has any of that. But on top of that he has (unintelligible), and is a strong supporter of the settlement movement in Israel and he's associated with (unintelligible) in Israel; which (unintelligible) in the context of such a sensitive post, have raised questions whether he will able to be the U.S. ambassador to all of Israel or just one part of it.
CUOMO: All right. So another question is what you're talking about with two-state solution. Let's put up the op-ed that Mr. Friedman wrote back in August — obviously, before we assume he had any idea to believe he'd be in this position: 'The two-state solution is an illusion that serves the worst intentions of both the United States and the Palestinian Arabs. It's never been a solution — only a narrative — but even the narrative itself now needs to end.' Your take?
INDYK: Well, that position is at odds not just with — with U.S. policy as developed by others — George W. Bush, who was the first president to support the idea of an independent Palestinian state living alongside Israel in peace. That is the heart of the two-state solution. That is the position that is endorsed and embraced even this week by Prime Minister Netanyahu. We don't know where President-elect Trump stands on that issue — whether he agrees with the ambassador designate — but it's a real break with U.S. policy in the past by both Republican and Democratic presidents — and the sitting prime minister of Israel.
Secondly, and very importantly, President-elect Trump has said on three occasions unprompted that he wants to be a dealmaker between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Well, there's only one deal that can be made between the Israelis and the Palestinians; and that is for a two-state solution and interim deals that lead up to that. But the reality is that's the only way in which you get a solution. Any (unintelligible) is no solution at all.
CUOMO: And last, quickly, is Friedman says he will move the embassy. Obviously, he doesn't decide; but he looks forward to doing it out of the new embassy location for the U.S. in Jerusalem. Now, that's very controversial territory. The Christians lay claim to Jerusalem. The Jews, obviously, lay claim. Even the Muslims have tried to pull out some cultural precedent for their presence there. What does that mean about wanting to move the embassy?
INDYK: Well, that is the position of the President-elect, Donald Trump, as well. It's been the position of past presidents — including President Clinton and President Bush when they were running — but none of them were prepared to do it because it is incendiary act — not quite for the reasons that you suggest, but because it is the crucible of the three (unintelligible) visions. The third holiest mosque in Islam is on the top of the ruins of the Jewish Temple (unintelligible).
So, it's a highly contested and a highly-combustible issue; and for that reason, the United States has not been prepared to recognize as Israel's capital — actually because Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1967; and so, moving the capital there would imply that the United States was recognizing Israeli sovereignty over all of Jerusalem — including the Arab part and the part which has the third-holiest mosque in Islam.
So, it's a very provocative move in the current circumstances; and for that reason, Israeli governments have not been making an issue out of it. Of course, they want the United States to recognize Jerusalem as their capital—
CUOMO: Right—
INDYK: They haven't made an issue out of it because of the danger that it could explode everything.
CUOMO: Right. Martin Indyk, thank you very much. It is unusual, to say the least, that the U.S. ambassador seems to be more hardline on Israeli issues than Israel itself — our appreciation to him.
