Nikki Haley was President Trump’s selection for UN Ambassador as she is recognized for her ability to undermine policies that she believes are anti-Israel. Since UN Ambassador Nikki Haley was sworn in two months ago by Vice President Mike Pence, she has diverged from the policies of former UN Ambassador Samantha Power and has demonstrated that she will not be a tenuous leader. Power was the UN Ambassador during the time in which the UN Security Council denied Israel the right to build settlements in the West Bank.
Haley appeared at the 2017 American Israel Public Affairs Committee Conference to demonstrate to pro-Israel proponents that she is prepared to work with the nations that agree with America’s agenda while opposing the nations that belittle Israel. In reference to the countries that disparage Israel in the UN, she stated, “If I see something wrong, we’re going to kick them.”
The interview she partook in was conducted by foreign policy analyst Dan Senor. At the beginning of her appearance at the pro-Israel lobbying conference, Haley describes her perception of other countries represented in the UN as “confusing.” She continued to describe a UN meeting concerning the Middle East as a “Israel-bashing session.” The UN Ambassador was expecting other topics such as the war in Syria and the threat of ISIS to be discussed rather than anti-Israel sentiments. She claims that what she experiences in UN meetings is outright “ridiculous.”
After beginning her interview with her strong opposition to how the UN is being handled, she resorted to explain her background to the audience. Haley compared her Indian culture to the Israeli culture by comparing the “strong work ethic” and “professionalism” of these cultures and by adding a small remark about the “aggressiveness” of these cultures. Her connection with the audience sparked a large wave of applause. However, she ultimately fell back to announcing her plans to combat anti-Israeli sentiments in the UN. In a speech prior to the convention, she told her audience that she is “taking names” of the countries that do not have Israel’s back. The Ambassador condemned Resolution 2324 and labeled it as “the United States’ weakest point ever.” When the UN abstained from the vote of Resolution 2324, they ultimately denied Israel the right to build settlements in the West Bank.
After presenting her strong feelings toward the UN’s approach on Israeli issues, she then provided some pragmatic solutions. Her first method is to “change the culture of the UN.” By announcing the policies they are not in support of to UN members and by creating new policies that the US can carry out, Haley is ready to “kick them every single time” with her heels when policies that are not in support of the United States’ closest ally are proposed. Secondly, Haley is prepared to “respond” to allies that challenge their relationship with the United States. Lastly, Haley claims that she will “not allow any freebies” for the Palestinian authority until the UN “responds the way they are supposed to.”
Although Ambassador Haley claims that she will be the “new sheriff in town,” her plans do not seem to be outlined completely. How she will respond to allies that challenge the US is unclear. How Haley will convince all the members of the UN to change their mindset seems nearly impossible. Haley is clearly a pro-Israel advocate and as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is complicated, so must a plan to carry out these promises must be. As complicated as the conflict is and as diversified opinions circulate within communities throughout America, all Americans should recognize that there is no clear solution to defend the only democracy in the Middle East, but Americans should definitely expect Haley to create a new American attitude in the United Nations.