Dermer has come under fire first for telling Democratic Party leaders, weeks before the scheduled trip, that Tlaib and Omar would be permitted to enter, saying at the time: "Out of respect for the US Congress and the great alliance between Israel and America, we would not deny entry to any member of Congress into Israel."

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Following Israel's reversal on Dermer's assertion, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who only a week earlier in Jerusalem pledged the importance of bipartisan support for Israel, called the decision "outrageous."

"This action is contrary to the statement and assurances to me by Israel's ambassador to the United States that 'out of respect for the US Congress and the great alliance between Israel and America, we would not deny entry to any Member of Congress into Israel,'" said Hoyer. "That representation was not true."

According to a report by McClatchy news service, several senior Democrats, including Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel (D-NY) and Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-NY) have now taken specific aim at Dermer.

McClatchy quotes an unnamed "senior congressional source" saying that "with Dermer, the issue is that there already was a severe lack of trust. But now there is a severe lack of confidence. It is completely unclear that he represents his government, given he has made promises that he has not kept and wasn't clear if he ever had any chance of keeping."

In Israel, Dermer has received similar treatment. Rather than support his envoy to the United States, Israeli Foreign Minister Yisrael Katz in an undiplomatic move threw Dermer under the bus when it appears quite clear that Dermer isn't to be blamed for Israel's final decision. In an interview with Channel 12's "Meet the Press," Katz stated that Dermer's assurance "was not with the prime minister's blessing. It was not a decision of the Israeli government. It was not with my blessing. He gave his opinion."

As foreign minister, Katz should ordinarily have sought to protect Israel's envoy. Yet Dermer is no ordinary ambassador. In addition to his deep knowledge of the American political system, which makes him highly effective at advancing Israeli interests within the political system of Israel's most important ally, he possesses an asset that most ambassadors and even some foreign ministers can never acquire: a direct line to the prime minister.

Katz, on the other hand, was appointed to the role of foreign minister as part of a lame-duck cabinet shuffle two months before the April elections to fulfill a court mandate requiring that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not simultaneously hold the positions of foreign minister and defense minister along with the country's top job. It is highly unlikely that he will maintain in his current portfolio following the Sept. 17 elections.

It was Netanyahu, Katz's immediate predecessor in the foreign ministry, who offered a more diplomatic and appropriate statement explaining Israel's reversal. Netanyahu said, "When Ambassador Dermer spoke, there was no specific request regarding these visits; neither was there an itinerary or a specific travel plan. As soon as these arrived, we checked it and reached the decision that we did. This was a principled, not a partisan, decision. We respect all political parties in the US equally; however, we also respect ourselves. Whoever comes to impose boycotts on us and to deny the legitimacy of the State of Israel, we will not allow them entry."

Dermer was appointed ambassador seven years ago following an extensive stint as Netanyahu's senior adviser, a role Dermer continues to maintain unofficially even while stationed in Washington. The trust Netanyahu has in Dermer runs so deep that the prime minister recently stated when asked about who should succeed him, he replied: "There are two people I consider fit to lead the State of Israel: [Mossad Intelligence director] Yossi Cohen and Ron Dermer."

In an increasingly polarized political environment in the United States, Dermer first provoked the ire of several Democrats in 2015, when he worked with then-Speaker of the US House of Representatives John Boehner to have Netanyahu address a joint session of Congress, during which he famously opposed the Iran nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) promoted by then-President Barack Obama.

The deal, according to Dermer "did not prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but rather paves Iran's path to nuclear weapons." While Democrats opposed Netanyahu's address, which would not have been possible without Dermer's strategic abilities and deep political ties, the speech has proven itself as a watershed moment in Israeli diplomacy.

First, the controversial address ultimately led to US President Donald Trump's withdrawal from the JCPOA. Secondly, Arab states that were similarly threatened by the deal saw the strength of Netanyahu in publicly challenging an ally and the world's greatest superpower. Many Persian Gulf states have dramatically improved their relations and defense coordination with Israel after the address, and now see the Jewish state as a critical ally in countering a nuclear Iran. Dermer calls it "the silver lining, if there is one," of the Iran deal.

While the speech opposed the policies of a Democratic president, it was not made because the president was a Democrat. Had a Republican signed the Iran deal, Netanyahu and Dermer would have been equally opposed to it. A nuclear Iran is not a partisan issue to Israelis.

And yet despite criticism that the speech was a partisan affair, Dermer continued working successfully with both Democrats and Republicans to advance Israel's interests. He was able to ink perhaps his finest diplomatic achievement to date with the very same Obama administration that was offended by the congressional address. At the close of Obama's term, Dermer led direct negotiations with the administration on a 10-year, $38 billion package to provide for Israeli security needs for years to come.

It is precisely this aid package that Democrats point to while criticizing Israel's decision to bar the pro-BDS congresswomen. Omar and other anti-Israel Democrats, including 2020 presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (technically an independent), are now calling for the United States to re-evaluate the aid to Israel, which is essentially a call for America to sanction Israel for the decision.

Yet it is these calls by progressive Democrats that highlight the importance of the long-term aid package. The memorandum of understanding that Dermer helped shape will continue to provide for Israel over the next decade was passed first on the executive branch level, and only later codified into law by a Congress that now has progressive anti-Israel elements within its ranks.

As for Friedman, the same McClatchy article notes that Democratic lawmakers may call for an investigation "into the role the ambassador played in barring them from entering the country."

Immediately after Israel's announcement, Friedman released a statement saying that "the United States supports and respects the decision of the Government of Israel to deny entry to the Tlaib/Omar delegation."

While many Democratic representatives didn't agree with the decision, Friedman's boss – Donald Trump – most certainly did. Just hours before the ban, Trump tweeted: "It would show great weakness if Israel allowed Rep. Omar and Rep. Tlaib to visit. They hate Israel & all Jewish people, & there is nothing that can be said or done to change their minds. Minnesota and Michigan will have a hard time putting them back in office. They are a disgrace!"

Friedman, too, possesses a key asset most diplomats simply do not have: a direct line to the president. As a trusted lawyer of Trump for years before the mercurial leader began his presidential run, Friedman already had Trump's confidence.

It was Friedman and Special Representative for International Negotiations Jason Greenblatt, also a longtime Trump lawyer, who helped the president formulate his Mideast policy.

In his role as ambassador, Friedman has been instrumental in several key policy moves made by the Trump administration, including the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the move of the US embassy and ambassador's residence from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the defunding of the UN Relief and Works Agency, and most recently, US recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights (a move that Dermer has acknowledged "would not have happened without Friedman").

While critics note that Friedman comes from outside of traditional diplomatic circles, it is this outsider view that helps him guide a president who comes from outside the traditional political arena.

So while criticism is being leveled at the respective ambassadors, they are targets precisely because of the confidence they have built with their nation's leaders. And it is precisely those relationships that make them such effective envoys.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post While critics cry foul, US, Israeli envoys deliver for democratic allies appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Netanyahu told Israeli reporters traveling with him in India on Wednesday his "solid assessment" is that the American Embassy "will be relocated much faster than we think … within a year."

Last month, U.S. President Donald Trump upended decades of American foreign policy and infuriated many around the world when he announced that the United States officially recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and plans to relocate its embassy there.

American officials have said it was unlikely any Jerusalem embassy would open before the end of Trump's first term.

In his press briefing, Netanyahu also addressed Trump's statement last week setting a four-month deadline for major changes in the Iran nuclear agreement – an agreement brokered by Trump's predecessor former U.S. President Barack Obama and other world powers with Iran in an effort to curb Tehran's nuclear efforts.

Trump declared that unless the agreement, which allows Iran to continue testing ballistic missiles, undergoes major changes, the U.S. will pull out of it.

Netanyahu also welcomed the U.S. State Department's move to cut $65 million in aid to the U.N. agency that supports Palestinian refugees. Netanyahu, who has repeatedly argued that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency perpetuates the Palestinian refugee problem, remarked that this was the first time that anyone has "stood up and challenged the agency."

"I don't know if they will follow through with what has been made public, but it is good that something is being done to challenge this body," Netanyahu said, adding that the U.N. was currently considering his proposal to make UNRWA subordinate to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.

The post Netanyahu assesses that US will move embassy to Jerusalem within a year appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Using particularly jarring language, Abbas said, "Trump, 'ikhrab beitak'" – an Arabic curse meaning "may your house be destroyed."

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is on a state visit to India, said, "Abbas has shown his true colors. He has torn off his mask and made clear the simple truth that I have been trying to expose for many years: The root of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict lies with the Palestinians' fundamental and constant refusal to recognize a Jewish state in any borders."

Abbas' speech "serves our political goals more than anything else, because we can make the elementary claim that unless the Palestinian policy, as expressed by Abbas, changes, there can be no progress," Netanyahu said.

"He exposed his true position and did a great service both to the truth and to Israeli diplomacy. Abbas is afraid of an American initiative. He wants to exclude the Americans from mediating [peace talks], but there is no one else. The Palestinian Authority has been coddled for too long by international bodies that were always quick to hide the truth and placate."

A senior official with Netanyahu's entourage to India described Abbas' speech as "that of a man who has nothing left to lose."

Abbas "is digging his own grave," the official said. "He is systematically losing legitimacy around the world, and this happens every time he makes such radical statements. A growing number of international officials are sending Israel the message that they want nothing to do with him and that they understand he is the real peace rejectionist."

President Reuven Rivlin said the comments brought to mind Abbas' doctoral dissertation, in which he challenged the number of Jewish victims of the Holocaust and claimed Zionists had collaborated with Nazis.

"He reverted back to the ideas he expressed decades ago, and they were no less terrible then," Rivlin said Monday. "To say Israel is the result of a Western conspiracy to settle Jews in land belonging to Arab populations? To say that the Jewish people have no link to the Land of Israel? He forgot many things, and said exactly the things that led him to be accused years ago of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial."

Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman said Abbas had "lost his senses" and had given up on the prospect of peace negotiations in favor of open confrontation with both Israel and the United States.

"It is clear that Abbas doesn't want peace or any agreement and that from his perspective, Trump's [Jerusalem] declaration was just an excuse to shun direct negotiations. He may speak against terrorism, but he is also terrorism's biggest sponsor. He rewards terrorists according to the gravity of the attack they perpetrate," Lieberman said.

Habayit Hayehudi Chairman Naftali Bennett described the speech as "Abbas' swan song."

In a statement issued following Abbas' speech, the European Union said its position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains "based on the Oslo Accords."

"A negotiated two-state solution which fulfills the aspirations of both sides, Israel and Palestine, is the only realistic way of bringing the lasting peace and security that both Israelis and Palestinians deserve," European Commission spokeswoman Maja Kocijancic told reporters in Brussels.

France, which organized an international conference in support of the two-state solution last year, issued a similar statement, while Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow "understands" Abbas' anger.

"For years they [the Palestinians] made concessions without receiving anything in return. We constantly hear that the U.S. is about to unveil an important deal that would satisfy all sides. We have not seen this kind of document," Lavrov said.

Palestinian officials on Monday tried to downplay the shock caused by Abbas' use of the phrase "ikhrab beitak."

"This phrase is common in Palestinian slang. It was not a curse and no one meant any offense," senior Fatah official Ziad Abuzayyad said.

Former Arab Democratic Party MK Talab El-Sana, who advises Abbas on issues pertaining to Israeli society, stressed that the Palestinian president "did not mean to curse or humiliate Trump. His words were directed at the hearts of the Palestinian people and the remark on Trump's house was sarcastic."

Not all in Ramallah agreed with Abbas' fiery rhetoric.

A senior Palestinian official, who boycotted the conference where Abbas spoke, told Israel Hayom that "it was embarrassing to see Abbas and hear the style in which his speech was given.

"Abbas is leading us toward the abyss. What will he do when the money from the U.S. stops coming in? The Arab countries have yet to transfer 80% of the money they pledged and the Palestinian Authority can function economically only thanks to American aid and tax revenues that Israel collects on its behalf."

The post Netanyahu: Abbas' speech exposed his true colors appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.