If I may, it's nice to know your thoughts on this.
I think I disagree with all of you: I believe that the appointment of David Friedman as the US ambassador to Israel is great for both countries. The US has been involved in several interventions in Israeli politics since at least the Oslo Accords, which have been a total disaster for israeli citizens and palestinian arabs in Judea, Samaria and Gaza (now finally in control by the totalitarian islamist movement Hamas); and for the US taxpayer. Also, it funded (with the EU and other Arab states) the PA, which promoted attacks to israeli citizens over and over again throughout the years, and indoctrinated its own population with Jew-hatred (Rand Paul promoted a bill to stop funding the PA some tme ago).
David Friedman knows the facts of the subject right, and the truth of the matter is that he will most likely do nothing with neither Israel nor the palestinians; i.e. the US governments from Clinton to Obama decided that the best policy was to guide Israeli politics and blame Israel for the abscence of formal peace. So, and both he and Trump have said so already, the US will stop its interventionism in the situation. This is certainly a non-interventonist stance. If it helps Israel it is so because it stops supporting PA's agenda (and indirectly attacks on israelis). But it is a collateral consequence. The main thing is that the US stops intervening in Israel's affairs.
About the embassy subject (and this is certainly realpolitik), it being located in Tel Aviv is one more political choice guided by interventionism in foreign affairs; how so? because the US refuses de facto to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (although formally says so), by placing its embassy in Tel Aviv. Moving it to Jerusalem means to recognize Israel as a sovereign state that (like the other near 200 states in the world) has the right to chose its own capital city; without the need to get permission from Washington. If the argument for not moving the embassy is that there will be an islamist terror wave, then Israel's support should be abandoned altogether, since one of the reasons they attack US citizens is that Israel is "the small Satan" supported by the US.
But if you think that islamist hatred of America is actually tied to Israel you are wrong: while Israel is the "small Satan", America is "the Great Satan". They hate both Israel and America for what they represent, whether or not the US promotes or has promoted intervention in Middle Eastern affairs in the past. But it seems we disagree on this point.
PS: Bob, it's nice to be in touch with you. I'm a big fan of your Daily Alerts!
Walter Block adds:
let me add that as a practical matter, Israel would be better off in my opinion, without "help" from the US. as a result of this "help" Israel has to fight its battles with one hand behind its back. its response has to be "proportional." It cannot conquer any Arab country. without US "help" (Eisenhower), Israel would now own the entire Sinai peninsula.
My response to AF:
I am trying to understand your view here.
Do you hold that all Islamists already hate America and that moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem won't tip some toward greater hate and the possibility of acting out their hate?
I should carify that by Islamism I mean the most extreme version of Islam (see a brief exposition here http://www.danielpipes.org/954/distinguishing-between-islam-and-islamism). Of course I do not believe that every advocate of Islam as such hates America (Islam and Islamism are different things). But Islamists do, and moving the embassy to Jerusalem will not make them hate America more.
Nevertheless I do understand both your position and your concerns. Even if there are attacks and they claim that these are a consequence of moving the embassy, I see it as just an excuse. In the very same way that they use whatever the US actually does wrong as an excuse to attack.
But again, I understand your position but do not share it.
Walter Block responds:
Dear Bob:RW response to Block:
I don't think that all Islamists already hate America and that moving the
U.S. embassy to Jerusalem won't tip some toward greater hate and the
possibility of acting out their hate?
I agree with you that moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem will indeed tip some toward greater hate and the
possibility of acting out their hate.
My response is, So what. Let 'em hate us even more, and act out on it. We should do what is right.
Look, suppose I advocate getting rid of the minimum wage law, and this will get lefties to hate me, the free enterprise system, even more than would otherwise be the case. And, some of them will act out on their hate. Should I refrain, therefore, from advocating getting rid of the minimum wage law? Surely, you'll agree with me, that I should not so refrain. So, why should I refrain from advocating a move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem?
Well, first, because as Americans, it makes a difference to us what happens in America with regard to the minimum wage.
But, second, as Murray Rothbard pointed out in his memo "What is to be done?" (Strictly Confidential: The Private Volker Fund Memos of Murray N. Rothbard Chapter 1)sometimes it does make sense to keep our mouths shut.
"Thus, suppose that one is writing about taxation. It is not incumbent on the libertarian to always proclaim his full 'anarchist' position in whatever he writes..."
It is a strategic decision as long as we do not advocate a NAP violation. I am with Rothbard here and I do not agree with you that libertarians must always speak up at all times about every NAP violation.
But getting back to the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem issue, the function of a US embassy should be to process business of the US. I see no reason why this can't continue to be done in Tel Aviv. Moving it to Jerusalem would simply get us deeper into a foreign entanglement. By keeping it in Tel Aviv we are not violating NAP, we are just staying away from stirring up a hornets' nest, that you admit exists, for no reason.
I note that the neutral Switzerland also has its embassy in Tel Aviv.
I emphasize that I am not taking a position on who is the "rightful" lord over Jerusalem. Jews or Muslims, just that it is not the business of the US.
I have no problem with you personally advocating that Jerusalem belongs to the Jews----and I have no problem with Muslims making the case that it is their land.
I really don't care who rules the land. But my realpolitik perspective says it makes no sense for the US to stir up Muslims by moving the embassy.
Walter Block response to Wenzel:
I agree with you: there is no requirement for libts to comment on every issue. But, it is so much FUN!
I agree with you, too, that changing the embassy will "stir up" Muslims. But keeping it in Tel Aviv with "stir up" the Jews! I think it is reciprocal.
Are you saying Jews will start launching terrorist attacks in the US if the US keeps the embassy in Tel Aviv?UPDATE
Walter Block response:
hardy har har har. no of course not. but, should the squeaky wheel ALWAYS get the grease. is there to be no justice in the world? only might (terrorism in this case) makes right?