Jared Kushner Has What Middle East Diplomacy Requires | Opinion

By Jason D. Greenblatt

Jared Kushner, serving as an unpaid volunteer for the Trump administration, traveled to Egypt and Israel this week with Nickolay Mladenov, the Board of Peace’s high representative for Gaza, and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

I worked closely with Jared for nearly three years in the White House, and he has a strong and deeply trusted relationship with President Trump. He understands how the president thinks, negotiates and reaches decisions. Very few people could meet Hamas leaders and regional mediators in Cairo one day and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem the next, with each side knowing he had the president’s confidence. Jared is one of those few.

Years ago, critics dismissed Jared as an outsider who knew little about the region, especially compared to career diplomats who had spent decades on the file. That criticism has not aged well. Jared has now spent close to a decade with the region’s current leadership and understands where they want to go better than most. I’d push back hard on anyone who still thinks otherwise.

Before the visit, Prime Minister Netanyahu had rejected the Board of Peace’s 15-point roadmap. After nearly four hours of constructive talks, Israel and the Board agreed on a path forward, including working groups on Gaza’s demilitarization and public health. That is a practical step toward closing the gap and advancing President Trump’s 20-point plan. I remain skeptical that Hamas has abandoned its desire to attack Israel and ultimately destroy it, but that does not mean President Trump and his team should stop trying.

Jared also developed deep and trusted relationships with leaders across our Arab allies and in Israel. Under President Trump’s leadership, those relationships, combined with Jared’s unrelenting tenacity and determined optimism, created the Abraham Accords. The agreements normalized relations between Israel and several Arab countries and thoroughly shattered assumptions that had constrained Middle East diplomacy for decades, an outcome that eluded plenty of people who once doubted Jared belonged in the room.

The ranking Democrats on the House Judiciary, House Oversight and Senate Finance Committees are pursuing investigations into Affinity Partners, the firm Jared founded after leaving government in 2021, which is heavily funded by capital tied to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. Opposition to Jared volunteering once again to serve the United States government predates Affinity itself. Some of his critics have opposed his role since his first day back. Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has called the current arrangement “a glaring and incurable conflict of interest.” The critics’ claim is that the United States government cannot rely on Jared Kushner while he remains active in private business in the Middle East. My answer is unequivocally that this would be a mistake, both for the United States and for our allies there.

We are now more than 570 days into President Trump’s second term, and Jared has been involved from the beginning. No critic has produced a shred of evidence that an American negotiating position was altered because of an Affinity investment, that a concession was made to a country because its sovereign wealth fund invested with Jared, that confidential information was transferred for private gain, or that any other advantage was provided to a country in return for investing in Affinity. Anyone with such evidence should produce it. I don’t believe it exists.

Sovereign wealth funds invest with firms whose principals understand the relevant countries, economies and regions and have extensive relationships there. That is one of several explanations for why Affinity attracts investors, along with what appears to be a strong track record for the firm. Neither proves that Jared did anything remotely inappropriate.

Critics say the real ask is not that Jared give up Affinity. It is that he not be allowed to serve his country at all while he owns it. If no law or regulation is being violated, I think that trade is a bad one for America. It is the country that would be giving up something rare, not Jared. The answer that usually comes back is that legality is not enough, and that protocol, morality and appearance should govern as well. But who decides? What does protocol mean anyway? Protocols come and go with administrations. Who decides morality? CNN or Fox? A Democrat who despises President Trump or a Republican who adores him? Appearance is incredibly subjective. A room full of people in one community may see nothing wrong with the arrangement. A room in another community may find it deeply troubling. That is exactly why personal discomfort cannot become a binding rule.If Congress believes clearer boundaries are necessary, Congress should write them. It can require disclosure, restrict specified transactions or define recusal obligations. Those rules should be written in advance and applied to every president and every family, whichever party holds the White House. Standards should not be invented after the fact by a committee, a network or a political opponent, and repeating an allegation does not convert it into a verdict.

Whatever rules Congress may eventually decide to write, the judgment for right now is not a close call. I weigh these concerns about Jared against having someone with his experience, access, relationships and proven record helping President Trump pursue what may be a historic opportunity for stability among our allies in the Middle East. I come down strongly in favor of keeping him at the center of that effort.

Jared goes into these meetings knowing the region’s leaders, and the ground beneath them, better than almost anyone else Washington could send. That is exactly where he should be.

Source: https://www.newsweek.com/jared-kushner-has-what-middle-east-diplomacy-requires-12340906