The New Ambassador to Israel

At Power Line, Paul Mirengoff raises concerns about the appointment of Richard H. Jones as the new U.S. Ambassador to Israel. 

Jones had been serving as Senior Advisor to Condoleezza Rice and Coordinator for Iraq since March of this year. Before that, he served as Ambassador to Kuwait from 2001-2004 (serving concurrently from November 2003 to June 2004 as the Chief Policy Officer and Deputy Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq), U.S. Ambassador to Kazakhstan (1998-2001), U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon (1996-1998), Director of the State Department’s Office of Egyptian Affairs (1993-1995) and Counselor for Political Affairs in the American Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (1989-1992). 

He reportedly “knows none of the major politicians on either side of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute and has never been assigned to the issue, even in Washington” but has the confidence of Rice.  More background on Jones is here.

Jones was one of four ambassadorial nominees to appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on July 27, 2005, in a relatively brief and perfunctory hearing.  (The Committee did not publish a transcript of the hearing, but a Federal News Service, Inc. one is available on Lexis-Nexis).  But a couple answers were possibly noteworthy.

Senator Chuck Hagel asked each nominee to address what Hagel referred to as a “global generational shift” (apparently there is a younger generation coming along, all over the world).  Hagel asked the nominees to give him their “analysis of that dynamic in the jobs that you are preparing to assume and how you see that fitting into not just your challenge, but how you will approach that as we reach out and try to explain America’s purpose in the world, and what we are about as a country.”

Jones deserves praise for diplomatically not telling Hagel how fatuous his question was, but part of his answer was itself a little strange: 

Your question is very thought provoking.  My immediate reaction is that Israel may be a little bit of a different case than some of the other countries, in the sense that our efforts at bringing peace to Israel and helping it to create defensible borders, helping it to gain a comfortable space in the region that surrounds it is ongoing. . . .

I do think there are things working in our favor to continue and to renew this relationship with Israel, particularly as we stand by Israel as it takes risks for peace, as we work to help them mitigate those risks, to help them achieve sustainable borders, to achieve peace with the Palestinians and also with their neighbors.

But at the same time, there are demographic pressures growing in Israel.  There is no question of that.  There is a rapidly growing Arab population in Israel, and that is, I think, a segment of the society that we need to work on to build our relationship with them. And so there are also challenges in Israel.

I think one of the possible strengths I bring to bear, although I’m a novice in dealing with Israel, I do speak Arabic. . . .

Later in the hearing, Senator George Allen asked Jones about his new role, suggesting he might use his position as a bully pulpit to address the issue of terrorism — an interesting possibility given Jones’ fluency in Arabic.  Jones’ answer was a little disappointing:

SEN. ALLEN:  . . .  Do you see your role as ambassador to Israel as one of using a bully pulpit to prod, encourage, push for progress on this area, the issue of terrorism?  That more than anything else will of course foul up the so-called roadmap.  Unless that is assured I think it’s very difficult for Israel to be able to have any confidence in some of the risky efforts they’re making.

Not just in Gaza, I’m talking about other settlements on the West Bank. But do you see your role as a ambassador to be pushing for this action on the — as far as pushing the Palestinians towards it?  I’m just trying to figure out how you’re going to figure in on this team and your role.

MR. JONES:  Yeah, right.  Well, obviously an ambassador has a very important opportunity to make public statements, and you can address a variety of audiences in those statements.

I mean, as ambassador to Israel, my primary focus will be on speaking to the Israeli people.  But . . . . you can rest assure [sic] that I am adamantly opposed to violence in all forms, especially extremist and terrorist violence.

The State Department is an expert in adamantly opposing violence in all forms, without distinguishing whether it is offensive or defensive in nature, constantly reminding “both sides” of their “obligations.”  Jones appears to have the lingo down:  “risks for peace,” “adamantly opposed to violence in all forms,” etc. But as both Paul Mirengoff and Diana West note (here, and, even more forcefully, here) the real question raised by his appointment is what his superiors have in mind.