NYTimes @halbfinger did analysts a genuine service with this informative Ambassador Friedman interview (+ two threads), getting several candid answers to important questions hitherto left unanswered.

My own thoughts on the pro-Israel angle below. Thread. https://twitter.com/halbfinger/status/1348231745070657537

From a pro-Israeli perspective, the record is actually mixed. Policies harmed Israel in several key senses.

On Israel-Iran:

A. Trump ended US overt and covert support to Syrian rebels, catalyzing Assad's takeover of Southern Syria, where IRGC and Hezbollah forces now operate;

B. Trump's announcements and implementations of withdrawal of US troops from both Syria and Iraq, and apparent betrayal of Kurdish allies, critically harmed the perception of US power in the Middle East.

C. To Netanyahu's mind, Trump's rejection of Israel's request for a US credible military threat has been disastrous: Israel lost the JCPOA's caps on Iranian nuclear enrichment and failed to leverage the accumulated economic pressure on Iran toward an Iranian policy shift.

On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

A. Trying to instill a sense of "realism" among Palestinians Ambassador Friedman endorsed unrealistic Israeli maximalist positions, causing harm by robbing Israelis of a sense of realism.

Friedman partly acknowledges effecting such harm, without realizing its severity. He impeded Israeli leaders from explaining to the public why certain compromises are at all needed, not least after no-cost US recognition of Golan Heights and Jerusalem. https://twitter.com/halbfinger/status/1348231782110535680

B. Friedman's deep empathy toward Israelis prevented him from seeing that Palestinians too currently deem certain things non-negotiable. His policies thus led most Palestinians to more forcefully affirm their commitment to several key claims: both reasonable and unrealistic ones.

C. Unilateral US attempts to remould peacemaking's terms of reference did not win regional and international endorsement. Things like UNRWA reform can't be done unilaterally. Worse, This accentuated worldwide rejection of Israeli positions, both reasonable and unrealistic ones.

D. Contra to Friedman's claim ("There’s no going back on what we’ve been able to do"), and not least because of its overwhelmingly one-sided framing, the Trump Plan would persist as a reference only for among Israelis & some allies. Many unilateral Trump policies would be undone.

E. Some of the most important pro-Israeli feats of the Trump administration, particularly Israel-Arab normalization agreements, were reached despite Friedman, rather than thanks to him. It was Friedman who fought for annexation, losing to Kushner's normalization preference.

F. Friedman's painting of US-Israel relations as firmly pro-settler and annexationist, in disregard to conventional understandings of international law, harmed Israel's image and standing, particularly among US Democrats, European states, Arab states and publics.

There is much more to say. There is also need for an assessment from a different, broader conflict resolution perspective where the benefit-harm ratio is considerably worse. Perhaps in a different thread...