Being Perfectly Comfortable

Leiter also keeps in close contact with White House advisors and other Trump administration officials, including National Security Advisor Mike Waltz; Trump’s special envoy to Israel and the Middle East, Steve Witkoff; and his special envoy to Lebanon and the Middle East, Morgan Ortagus. Leiter maintains close ties with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the State Department undersecretaries responsible for relations with Israel and the Arab world.

“There are a lot of moving pieces and a lot of changes going on every day,” Leiter says.

One of Leiter’s first tasks was to navigate the lifting of the formal arms embargo that the Biden administration imposed in its final days, as well as the informal arms embargo that lower-level bureaucrats used to delay munitions shipments to Israel.

“We had to undo that and put everything back on track, which this administration is doing,” Leiter said.

As ambassador, Leiter is the chief liaison between Israel and the Jewish community. This means attending functions and keeping contact with top people at AIPAC, the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the American Jewish Congress, the Anti-Defamation League, the OU, the Agudah, heads of the Reform and Conservative movements, and the evangelical Christian community.

“Almost every week, I leave Washington for different communities and spend a long Shabbat — from Friday to Monday — where I canvass shuls, synagogues, temples, and then on Sundays, churches and church gatherings,” Leiter said.

During the last week of Ramadan, he held an iftar (breaking the fast) meal for 70 people at the ambassador’s residence in Washington. “We began with dates from the Jordan River Valley and then we had a kosher dinner in my residence.” He said five imams attended, and they all prayed together for the release of the hostages.

Even though the mainstream media has labeled Leiter as a “settler” due to the fact that he has lived nearly his entire adult life in Judea and Samaria, his Muslim dinner guests were unperturbed.

“We were all perfectly comfortable,” he said. “We’d all be perfectly comfortable throughout the Middle East if we only defeat the radicalism of the Iranian proxies.”

Leiter, who holds a master’s degree in international relations and earned a PhD in political philosophy from the University of Haifa, argues that Islam is long overdue for a religious reformation similar to the one Christianity underwent about 500 years ago.

“The battle over reformation within Islam has to do with whether or not to recognize Israel,” he said. “Those in favor of reformation are in favor of recognizing Israel. Those opposed to it are opposed to Israel, so if we can neutralize and defang the extremists in Tehran — that includes its proxies, the tentacles of this malevolent octopus: the Houthis, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah — then we’re going to be able to have a normalization with the Muslim world.”

Working his Way Up

Leiter traces his strong feelings for Eretz Yisrael back to elementary school, when he attended Yeshivas Beth Moshe in his hometown of Scranton.

In third grade, he was studying Chumash, and he distinctly remembers a conversation in which he playfully asked his rebbi where all these stories took place.

“Was it on Madison Avenue? Jefferson or Quincy?” he inquired, referencing street names in Scranton.

The rebbi laughed. “What do you mean? It didn’t take place here in Scranton. It took place in Eretz Yisrael.”

“So, I asked: Why aren’t we there?”

Leiter referred to correspondence between Rav Avraham Yitzchak Kook and Dr. Solomon Zeitlin, a professor of Jewish history at Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary (RIETS), in which Rav Kook mentioned that some souls have a natural inclination toward the land of Israel.

“Maybe I was just blessed with a soul like that,” Leiter said. “It was always clear to me that I was making aliyah. That’s where Jewish history is being made.”

As a youth, Leiter displayed a penchant for Jewish activism, attending demonstrations organized by the Student Struggle for Soviet Jewry (SSSJ), founded in the 1960s to lobby the US to use economic pressure on the Soviet Union to allow its Jews to emigrate.

If you read articles about Leiter’s background in mainstream media, they mention that Leiter was also a member of the JDL, the Jewish Defense League founded by Rabbi Meir Kahane, a controversial figure who made aliyah from New York and founded the Kach party, which advocated for the transfer of Arabs from Israel. The party was eventually banned, and Rabbi Kahane was assassinated by an Egyptian national in a New York hotel following a lecture.

The only problem with that story is that it’s fake news, according to Leiter.

“It’s a great rumor, but I was never in the JDL,” he said. “There was no JDL chapter in Scranton.”

Leiter left Scranton to further his Torah education at Yeshivas Chofetz Chaim in New York for two years. At age 18, he realized his boyhood dream of making aliyah and enrolled in a Hesder yeshivah in Kiryat Arba and served in the IDF.

He continued his Torah studies at Yeshiva Shavei Hevron, where he completed Yoreh Deiah. Rabbi Avraham Shapira, then Israel’s chief rabbi, asked him if he wanted to receive semichah in Yoreh Deiah. Leiter declined, stating that he intended to continue studying other sections of Shulchan Aruch to eventually take the chief rabbinate’s test for semichah.

Although he never completed that course of study, during his time in Chevron, Leiter helped establish the Admot Yishai neighborhood, situated about a mile from Me’aras Hamachpeilah, and eventually became the chair of the Jewish Community of Chevron.

In 1992, he moved to Eli in the Shomron and established the international media desk at the Yesha Council, which advocates for Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, which Leiter refers to as Israel’s “heartland.”

From 1996 to 2001, he attended universities and ultimately earned a PhD in political philosophy from the University of Haifa before starting a political career. He was a founding member of One Jerusalem, which was established in 2001 to promote a united Jerusalem. He then held several senior public service positions in Israel, including deputy director general of the Education Ministry, a parliamentary aide to Ariel Sharon, and chief of staff to Binyamin Netanyahu during his tenure as finance minister from 2003 to 2005.

Leiter has also taught law at the Kiryat Ono Academic Center and has authored numerous academic papers, blogs, and articles for both the Kohelet Forum and Israel Hayom.

A Weight on His Shoulders

Leiter has raised a family of eight children. A year and a half ago, he paid the ultimate price when his son, Moshe Yedidya, 39, a father of six himself, was killed in battle during the early days of the war against Hamas in Gaza. Dr. Leiter carries that with him in his new job in Washington.

He shared one story about his son during our conversation.

“When I asked him when he was in basic training, how it is that he’s able to carry so much weight on his shoulders in the hikes and the preparation for maneuvers, he said, ‘I add weight.’

“I said, ‘What do you mean you add weight? You need to take off weight.’

“He said: ‘No, no. I add the hopes and prayers of my bubbies and zeides on my shoulders. And as soon as I add that to my shoulder, the weight becomes bearable.’

“That’s what I’m carrying, too,” Dr. Leiter continues. “I’m carrying my son on my shoulders. I’m carrying my previous generations who could only hope and pray one day to walk the streets of Yerushalayim, of Yehuda, Shomron, of all of Israel — the Galil and the Negev. I represent the miracle. The biggest miracle in the annals of human history is the return of the Jewish People to their homeland. I’m the bearer of that miracle. And it’s a tremendous zechus I have to carry that miracle into the public sphere of Washington.”

Not a day goes by that Dr. Leiter isn’t engaged in the full spectrum of the seven fronts on which Israel is warring, not to mention other fronts that may arise in the future.

During our interview, I also asked him a series of questions about how Israel is collaborating with the Trump administration to address the Iranian nuclear threat; how to counter Qatari influence with an administration that has shown positive sentiments toward Qatar; the positions Israel is presenting to the United States to counter growing threats from Egypt and Turkey; the potential for expanding the Abraham Accords; the “day after” in Gaza; the prospects for annexing Judea and Samaria; and the upcoming discussions on renewing the MOU, the memorandum of understanding that governs US military aid to Israel. The current ten-year MOU expires in 2028, and discussions on renewal can be expected to start later this year. The interview was lightly edited for length and clarity.

President Trump initially seemed more conciliatory toward Iran. He sent them a letter suggesting he’d be interested in talks. Recently, he’s taken a more menacing tone, threatening Iran if it doesn’t abandon its nuclear project. We’re also reading reports about how new US military deployments in the region are on the way. So how is Israel trying to influence this process and to coordinate positions with the US or at the very least, stay in the loop?

Well, I can’t speak on behalf of the president or the administration. I can speak on behalf of the prime minister and the government of Israel. We’re making our case very strong and very clear. This theocratic regime in Tehran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. That means that if there are negotiations that are to succeed, the only success will be if the infrastructure is destroyed, or it has to be dismantled. We cannot have a situation like in the JCPOA, the Obama agreement, where the can is kicked down the road, where the infrastructure remains in place.

That agreement also allowed Iran to keep their ballistic missiles.

Exactly. That’s part of the equation. The idea of nuclear weapons is, number one, the enrichment of uranium, and number two, taking the enriched uranium and coupling it with the delivery system. So those cannot be allowed to exist. Their infrastructure has to be dismantled. If it could be achieved in a negotiation, which we’re highly doubtful about, then so be it. It doesn’t have to be kinetically accomplished, but the end result has to be that the development of these weapons is completely dismantled. If that is accomplished, then it will be better not only for Israel but for the entire world.

You’ve talked about Qatar in the past, and you’ve mentioned to the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations that we have to stop the policy of Qatar buying everybody out and buying tolerance for their support of terror. You said it’s no longer tenable. And on the other hand, we know that the US views Qatar as an important actor in the region. It hosts the US air base. We also know that special envoy Steve Witkoff, whom you mentioned earlier, considers Qatar to be playing a constructive role. So how receptive do you feel the administration is, or will be, when it comes to critiquing Qatar?

So let’s unpack that. First of all, you mentioned Steve Witkoff. He represents the president of the United States. He’s one of the closest officials within the White House to the president. He’s doing an incredible job. It’s a delight working with him, and he has the best interests of the United States at heart, and he’s committed full throttle to getting our hostages out. That is one thing.

The second thing is regarding Qatar. What they do right, we have to commend. If they’re involved in helping us get our hostages out, we’ll say thank you and encourage their help in that regard. But in what they do so far as supporting organizations in the United States that support anti-Israel activity and support anti-Semitism, we’re going to call them out.

I did say in one interview that you can’t support both the arsonists and the fire department at the same time. So if they’re supporting the fire department, we’re going to applaud that. If they’re supporting arsonists, we have to call them out.

But again, do you find the Trump administration receptive to this?

The Trump administration responds to that which is common sense. That’s what I’ve found. They’re operating on the basis of common sense and American interests. We’ll make our case, and then the Trump administration will do theirs. We’re very happy with the tango that we’ve developed with the administration, and we’ll discuss various approaches to dealing with actors on the international stage.

Many Israeli officials, yourself included, have expressed great concern about the Egyptian military buildup in the Sinai that violates the Camp David Agreement. How is Israel working with the Trump administration to force Egypt back into compliance? And do you believe the administration also views this as a serious threat to peace?

Well, anybody who cares about the peace agreement Israel has with Egypt has to care about violations. After October 7, there wasn’t any bandwidth within the [Biden] administration to talk about it. There is now. We’ve brought the violations to the attention of the administration. It’s being spoken about. It’s being dealt with, and I believe it’s going to be dealt with in a positive manner.

We need to come back to the table. We need to have inspections as there were in the past. There have been no inspections for a year and a half. We need those inspections, and we need to be able to talk to the Egyptians, our neighbors, through the good services of the United States — an ally of both — in order to ensure that the agreements are upheld.

I think it’s a very important point to emphasize here, as can be seen in the ceasefire agreement we have with Lebanon. We are going to insist on performance-based agreements. Not promises, but performance-based. The obligations are clear, and the obligations have to be fulfilled.

Turkey is also an emerging military threat to Israel. There are reports they’re building a large military base near Palmyra, Syria, and at the same time, we also read that President Trump is considering selling F-16 and maybe F-35 fighter jets to Turkey. Has Israel, or will Israel express its concerns or objections to the White House about these weapon sales?

Yes, we have expressed our concern about the possibility of the sale of F-35s. We’re not alone. Greece and Cyprus are also very, very concerned. We have to maintain stability in the region as much as possible. There are a lot of things that are changing, a lot of moving pieces, and we don’t think it’s the time to present a very important weapon to Erdogan, who calls our prime minister all sorts of names almost on a daily basis.

We’d like to first see Erdogan change his policy towards Israel — first change his rhetoric, and then ensure that the policies he’s going to implement are more inclined towards stability than instability. We’re in favor of keeping American and Russian troops in Syria. We think it adds to the stability as that country undergoes dramatic change. And we would prefer that Turkey does not move south with its forces in Syria. We can’t allow a large Turkish army under Erdogan to be close to our borders.

There’s still great enthusiasm for the Abraham Accords, especially if Saudi Arabia can be induced to join. You recently told the Jerusalem Post that the major hurdle to peace is that the Saudis want to ensure that their people see tangible benefits for the Palestinians in any deal, which, as we’ve read, might include a path to a Palestinian state. After October 7, should Israel be the side taking risks for peace?

Well, I think there’s very little bandwidth in the Israeli population today for a Palestinian state. There’s certainly far less bandwidth today than there was in the Trump plan [the “deal of the century”] in 2019. We have an administration that’s thinking out of the box. Certainly we can see that in relation to Gaza. The ad nauseam repetition of the two-state solution, which is not two, which is not state, and which is not the solution. It hasn’t gone anywhere, and it isn’t going anywhere. The Saudis are interested in normalization. We have to find the mechanism to work out their defense of the Palestinian Arabs living within us. We can do that. The important thing is that we go into a mode of normalization.

Let’s not forget that the Abraham Accords were not based on a paradigm of Israeli withdrawal. It was the first agreement we had where the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and, unfortunately, Sudan is now in a civil war, but Sudan as well signed agreements without forcing Israel into a mode of withdrawal. We don’t have any territory to withdraw from. We’re a tiny country. We’ve done it in the past. It’s only earned us, unfortunately, warfare and bloodshed, and it’s not going to happen in the near future.

We can pursue normalization in Saudi Arabia, as we can with Indonesia, with Malaysia, and with other Muslim countries, because it’s in everybody’s interests. Let’s raise the human development index. Let’s see how we can confer and collaborate on issues such as desertification, water, and energy. We have a lot to offer each other for the betterment of our countries.

Shortly after President Trump’s inauguration, which Yesha leaders attended, we read reports that there could be some imminent developments regarding the Israeli annexation of Judea and Samaria. Where does that stand now?

We’re not talking with the administration about extending Israeli law to Judea and Samaria. I think that it’s an ongoing discussion, and a fair discussion, because we are once again thinking out of the box. Any discussion in that regard has to include how the status of the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria are going to be improved. Again, it brings me back to the human development index and having a situation where everybody benefits.

During the Cold War, there was a policy called mutually assured destruction [MAD]. The way we kept away from nuclear warfare was the assurance that if one side attacks and the other attacks, then there’s mutually assured destruction. I think what the Trump administration is pursuing, instead of MAD, is MAC — mutually assured construction. We need to pursue avenues of international relations where everybody benefits.

The Abraham Accords are a stark example of how we can pursue that kind of international policy. I spent a lot of time in the Gulf states. I spent a lot of time meeting with thinkers, before the war, in Abu Dhabi. I felt comfortable with my yarmulke in Abu Dhabi, sometimes more than I felt in European cities. We can sit tomorrow in Riyadh and feel as comfortable as we can walking down the streets of Washington. There’s no reason why that can’t happen.

Is there any progress on President Trump’s plan to evacuate Gaza? And is Israel working with Trump on that, or is that dead in the water at this point?

Well, from our standpoint, there isn’t really a plan to evacuate. The plan that the president proposed is to facilitate those Gazans who want to leave and give them the opportunity to leave. There’s no talk of any forced evacuation. That certainly wouldn’t be part of the president’s program, or certainly not our advocacy.

Right now, the only thing that’s being forced is forcing them to stay. We need to provide them with the freedom to leave. So from our perspective — and the minister of defense has spoken about this, and the minister of foreign affairs has also presented this — we’re going to create a corridor of passage for those who want to leave. We’ve already facilitated those with European citizenship to exit through the Negev and to fly out from the Ramon army base, and certainly that facilitation will certainly grow.

But in terms of what the American plan is to secure alternative places, I understand the administration is working on that, and that’s really in the administration’s hands.

The Heritage Foundation was to hold a conference to discuss its recommendation that America phase out military aid to Israel over the next 20 years. The ambassador canceled his appearance at that conference. Now that the next MOU is almost up for discussion, and also in light of the Nagel Commission recommendation that Israel manufacture more of its weaponry, shouldn’t Israel welcome an open debate? Do you regret having pulled out of the conference?

I regret having to pull out of the conference. I did not want to pull out. But there are two issues, the tactical one and the strategic one. On a tactical level, it’s only fair to inform the ambassador what the conference is going to be about beforehand and not to be informed the evening before.

It was probably a bureaucratic or tactical mistake. I was not informed of the subject matter beforehand, so I immediately agreed when I was approached. I attend many conferences. I certainly want to attend Heritage. They are dear friends, but I need to be privy to what the subject matter is beforehand, and that brings me to the strategic side of things.

That discussion about the nature of our strategic alliance with the United States is a very important discussion. But timing is everything. It’s not the most pressing issue to be held right now when we’re in a seven-front war. First, we’ve got to deal with the war. We’ve got to defeat our enemies. We’ve got to win this war, and then we can discuss how to metamorphose or move our strategic and military relationship into a different mode.

Now is not the time to talk about the cessation of funding, even if it’s graduated. We need to do everything at the right time and in the right place.

Part of the embassy’s job, and I think you touched on this at the beginning, is cultivating and maintaining relationships with the Jewish communities and organizations. Now you’re often described in the mainstream media as having been a “settler leader.” I’m wondering, depending on the audience that you’re addressing, does that description help or hinder you? Or does it not come up at all?

It comes up with certain elements who would like to try and discredit me. I am who I am. I don’t apologize for living in the heartland of Israel since I made aliyah in 1978. Listen to what I have to say. You can agree and embrace it, or not.

I have not found that it’s hindered my ability to connect with people who also disagree with me. As I said before, I make a point about sitting with Democrats and Republicans. I reach out to all elements of the Jewish community. I don’t ask people to agree with me. I ask people to be open to fair and open-minded discussion.

So no, I don’t think it’s hindered me in the least. I have a commitment to the people of Israel, to the land of Israel and that’s what I broadcast. The traditions of Israel, as well as the identity of the Jewish People, are very, very important to me. And I talk about Jewish identity and our right to the land of Israel.

When people in the US see the demonstrations that are going on and the political rifts in Israel, what kind of questions do they ask you? What answers do you give them?

Well, the question is, is democracy ending in Israel, or are we at the end of the line? Is there more dissension than there is unity? The answer is very simple. The debate over judicial reform and the status of religion in society is very important. That debate has taken place in the United States and is taking place all throughout the West. It’s an example of the robust democracy that we have.

We’re in the context of a very difficult war where people are suffering. We’ve had over 2,000 people killed, if we take October 7 plus all the soldiers that were killed. We have over 5,000 soldiers wounded; we have tens of thousands of families removed from their homes. We have everybody suffering from missile attacks, and yet we still are able to debate the nature of our society amongst ourselves. I think it’s an example of our resilience, of our rejection of victimhood throughout the ages.

We’re not victims. We are resilient and strong people with faith in the Rock of Israel, as we say, “Tzur Yisrael v’go’alo.” There’s far more unity within society than there is dissension. We tend not to emphasize that unity, but deep down, the strands of unity are much stronger than the strands of division.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1057)