As someone who has walked the tightrope of Middle East negotiations, I understand the challenges faced by those working to broker peace and stability in a volatile region. That is why I feel compelled to defend my fellow diplomat, Steve Witkoff, against some shortsighted criticism recently leveled against him.
From where I stand, it looks like he is doing an excellent job thus far. That doesn’t mean I agree with every word he says and every step he takes. But I think he is being thorough, taking calculated risks, learning the landscape, and earning the trust of the players in the region.
I know what it’s like to be attacked from all sides. When Jared Kushner, David Friedman and I were working to reshape Middle East diplomacy during the first Trump administration, we were, initially, mocked by the press. What did three Orthodox Jews know about making peace with Arab nations? Yet, we persevered, and under President Donald Trump’s leadership and direction, together with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and courageous, visionary leaders in the Gulf, Trump’s team helped achieve the groundbreaking 2020 Abraham Accords.
I remember being misunderstood—badly. Two weeks into my tenure as envoy to the Middle East, a group of Israeli women from Judea and Samaria wanted to protest me for being “anti-settlements.” I don’t know why they thought I was against them, but they planned to make a ruckus in front of my house, family and community. I wonder how they feel now, after I emerged as one of their main vocal proponents and one of the strongest opponents of referring to the ahistorical “West Bank” or outrageously false “occupied Palestinian territories.” I don’t even like referring to “settlements,” a word used as a weapon against Jewish communities in areas where Jews have lived for millennia. It all goes to show how your persona can travel around the world before the real you gets a chance to prove yourself.
Some of those early critics who doubted our approach now applaud what we accomplished. But we did not succeed because we were the smartest, most charming, or otherwise best diplomats in the world. We weren’t. We just tried something new when conventional wisdom had failed time and time again, with Trump, an out-of-the-box thinker, directing. I see Steve trying something similar. He is hitting bumps in the road, especially trying to get Hamas to release the hostages, and his critics are frustrated. We all are frustrated, angry and in despair that the hostages remain in the clutches of Hamas, suffering in ways we cannot fathom. But even the best-intending critics should hold their tongues while a larger effort unfolds.
Critics seem to misunderstand the fundamental nature of diplomatic work. Meaningful progress on complex geopolitical challenges cannot be achieved by repeating talking points or catering exclusively to one side’s perspective. Diplomacy more often than not requires patience and engagement with parties diametrically opposed to all you believe in. You make peace with your enemies. You grow closer with normalization. You might succeed at creating calm even if the sides are not yet ready for peace or normalization. That’s progress.
Critics also underestimate Steve’s relationship with Trump. He doesn’t “freelance.” Everything he does is with Trump’s knowledge, direction and trust. Those attacking Steve are, by extension, questioning the strategy of a president who has done more to help Israel than any other in memory and achieved unprecedented Middle East breakthroughs.
Steve’s approach to engaging with Qatar has drawn a lot of criticism. Many critics suggest we should threaten or isolate them. But that ignores Steve’s understanding of regional dynamics in favor of talking points. How can we hope to secure the release of hostages or try to maintain regional stability without working with Qatar? This is not Steve’s position alone. The United States, under both parties’ administrations, maintains that Qatar is an important ally of the United States. I agree. Diplomacy is not about ideological purity; it’s about engagement and playing the long game.
Steve’s appearance on Tucker Carlson’s show—a platform often unsympathetic (or opposed) to causes I believe in—has also drawn critics’ ire. I’m no fan of many of Tucker’s recent guests, to say the least. But Steve should be applauded for rebutting some of the nonsense Tucker’s audience heard from some of those guests. Rather than retreating to an echo chamber, Steve chose to explain the complex realities of Oct. 7 and Israel’s challenges to that huge audience. And say what you will about Tucker, he did not cut Steve off or play “gotcha.” Ultimately, I bet this appearance will bring Tucker’s audience closer to Steve’s position on the issues—which ultimately is a mainstream, pro-Israel position.
Regarding Hamas and other terrorist groups, Steve and I view things differently. While I personally believe they are driven by an evil ideology that allows no room for change, he seems to be exploring whether change can come from within. If he is right, that would be wonderful. Why would anyone want to dissuade him from prodding? We must be open to evidence of opportunities to break through in a region we know can change quickly and dramatically. So, when Steve engages, he is doing his job: assessing the landscape. He and Trump are savvy enough to know when to cut the cord. But they can’t even begin to advance American interests without exploring all potential avenues for stability and security.
Remember, it was conventional wisdom that the Abraham Accords would never happen. But sometimes, things change, and it is in Americans’ interest to see if now is one of those times. And if the administration determines that Hamas is just playing games, I trust that there will be hell to pay.
To those quick to criticize diplomatic efforts, I pose some simple questions: What is your ultimate goal? If you believe a diplomat is generally aligned with your perspective and working to advance policies you support, is public attack a wise strategy? Would you prefer someone who fails to build credibility with allies and adversaries, leading to more disorder and American weakness? Someone who does not have the president’s ear or his trust? None of those would serve American interests.
If you, like me, think Steve is a smart and good man who has America’s interests at heart, and is focused on helping our allies and friends, (it is) best to hold your fire. Constructive criticism has its place, but it must be measured, strategic and focused on policy. If, in the future, specific policies emerge that genuinely harm our strategic interests, critique them. But do not dismiss the significant groundwork and potential progress being laid. And try to be patient: Sometimes, you want to protest in front of someone’s house, only to realize later on that they are advocating your cause more than you ever knew.