Raving rightist chosen as US ambassador to Israel
This posting has these items:
1) Haaretz: David Friedman, Trump’s Radical-right Ambassador, Makes Netanyahu Look Like a J Street Lefty, Chemi Shalev – “Friedman has expressed opinions that are considered radical even in today’s more right-wing Israel”;
2) Forward: Jewish Storm Builds Over David Friedman’s Appointment as Israel Ambassador, except for the settler groups writes Nathan Guttman;
3) Arab Digest: Trump and Israel the reckless statements – and why the Arab press says nothing;
4) RSIS: Trump’s Middle East: Back to the Future “transaction-based return to support of autocracy that is likely to tie him into knots and reinforce drivers of militancy and political violence”;
5) JPost: Trump’s ambassador pick is cause for Netanyahu to celebrate, JPost (and Arutz Sheva of course) welcome their new American ambassador;
6) LINKS, virtually every Israeli, US, Jewish and British publication has had something to say about Friedman’s appointment – we put in a few of the links;
President-elect Donald J. Trump and attorney David Friedman exit U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Camden, New Jersey, U.S., on Thursday, Feb. 25, 2010. Photo by Bradley C. Bower / Bloomberg
David Friedman, Trump’s Radical-right Ambassador, Makes Netanyahu Look Like a J Street Lefty
It’s a good thing ambassador-designate David Friedman will have diplomatic immunity; otherwise he might get arrested for incitement.
By Chemi Shalev, Haaretz premium
December 17, 2016
By Israeli standards, Donald Trump’s designated Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, is an extreme right-winger. He might find a place in the settler movement or with Naftali Bennett’s Habayit Hayehudi Party, but only on its right-wing fringes. He makes Benjamin Netanyahu seem like a left-wing defeatist. From where Friedman stands, most Israelis, never mind most American Jews, are more or less traitors.
Friedman won’t be the first Jewish ambassador to Israel, of course: Dan Shapiro, Dan Kurtzer and Martin Indyk preceded him. They often clashed with Israeli governments, but usually on behalf of their superiors in Washington and in the understated diplomatic tones in which they were trained. And whatever their opinions, they were well entrenched within the Israeli mainstream.
Friedman would be a different kind of envoy altogether, on the assumption that his appointment is approved, which, to my mind, is far from certain. Friedman has expressed opinions that are considered radical even in today’s more right-wing Israel. He opposes a two-state solution, supports settlements and advocates annexation, has denigrated President Obama as an anti-Semite, questioned the citizenship of Israeli Arabs, compared J Street to Holocaust-era kapos and so on. It’s good he’ll be coming with diplomatic immunity: For some of his articles and statements, Friedman could get arrested by the Israeli police on suspicion of incitement.
Friedman’s appointment would seem to confirm Bennett’s initial jubilation following Trump’s election: This is not an ambassador that a rational U.S. administration would send if it had any plans whatsoever to advance the peace process. This is an ambassador who will please Evangelicals, delight Jewish settlers and bring pleasure to Land of Israel zealots far and wide. In many ways, Friedman will seem like a turbo-charged Ron Dermer, courting the extreme right in his host country while shunning all the rest. It will upset many Israelis, including, possibly, Netanyahu himself. The prime minister is always concerned more about his right-wing flanks than his opposition on the left: The last thing he needs is a U.S. ambassador who supports his most feared rivals.
Friedman’s appointment will displease many Israelis and American Jews, of course: It will drive home just how much they have lost the plot and how Trump’s Presidency could represent transformational change, for the worse, from their point of view. The nomination of Friedman will raise alarm in European capitals and in many non-aligned countries. It is likely to be viewed by Palestinians as a signal that Trump intends to stray from any semblance of an even-handed approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to throw his full weight behind Israel.
Right-wingers, who tend to believe that a strong hand is the only thing needed to quell the restless natives, will assert that such resoluteness can make Palestinians “accept reality.” But the opposite might also be true, especially if Friedman’s appointment is a harbinger of Trump’s intention to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem: It could weaken Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority – which would please Friedman, as he has often written – and give rise to more extreme leaders who will try to spark a new and violent intifada.
What remains to be seen is whether Friedman’s appointment is a consequence of serious deliberations that have taken into account all the pros and cons – a remote possibility, apparently – or whether it is another impulsive, haphazard move with no rhyme or reason other than to get Friedman off Trump’s back or to please his son in law Jared Kushner, who contributed at least $20,000 to American Friends of Beit El Yeshiva, which Friedman heads. The very fact that Trump is dispatching as ambassador a bankruptcy lawyer so closely identified with a radical yeshiva in the West Bank is mind-boggling in and of itself, but no less mind boggling, almost 40 days after the fact, than Trump’s election.
One thing’s for sure: Just like he did on his way to the White House, Trump has no intention of playing by the rules. He is breaking the mould. Whether intentionally or out of sheer meshugas, Trump is indicating that he pays no attention to customs and precedents, and that he is likely to surprise the world each and every day of his tenure. If you like excitement in life, stay tuned. If you think this is no way to run a nuclear superpower in such a dangerous age, Friedman’s appointment provides no comfort. Stay worried.
Jewish Storm Builds Over David Friedman’s Appointment as Israel Ambassador
By Nathan Guttman, Forward
December 16, 2016
President-Elect Donald Trump’s decision to appoint David Friedman as his ambassador to Israel is brewing into a Jewish battle royale for supporters and detractors of the two-state solution.
For the Jewish left, Friedman appointment has quickly emerged as a banner for rallying troops already concerned with the impact the Trump presidency will have on the Israeli – Palestinian conflict. On the right, Trump’s choice of a pro-settlement bankruptcy lawyer as chief envoy to Israel is seen as ushering in a new era of settlement expansion and changing the fundamentals of American policy toward the conflict.
Daniel Kurtzer, former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt and Princeton professor, discusses why a Trump presidency creates dangerous levels of uncertainty in the Middle East.
The importance of Friedman’s appointment cannot be overstated, according to former ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer.
“Every thing an ambassador says and does has an impact on policy,” said Kurtzer. He added that usually an ambassador implements policies set by the administration, but Friedman seems intent on forging his own stands. To prove the point, Kurtzer referred to Friedman’s comment in the official statement on his appointment in which he expressed his intention to work “from the U.S. embassy in Israel’s eternal capital, Jerusalem.”
“The president hasn’t been sworn in yet, the Secretary of State hasn’t spoken about this, and he’s already talking about the policy he is going to change,” said Kurtzer. “This is unheard of.”
But what Kurtzer and others see as an alarming development, pro-settler activists view as a blessing, hoping it will herald a shift in American policy toward the settlements and Jerusalem.
“Friedman has a deep love for all of the land and people of Israel, including those in Judea and Samaria,” said Oded Revivi, spokesman for the settlement council Yesha.
“David Friedman is the first ambassador that tells the truth and promotes the truth,” said Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America in an interview. This truth, according to Klein, is that “the Arabs want to continue killing Jews” and they refuse to accept Israel as a Jewish state.
Klein also expressed his conviction that with Trump as president and Friedman as ambassador, the Israeli government will be free to expand building within the boundaries of the existing settlements without the U.S. administration limiting its actions. “We will now see the prime minster building more because he will no longer have the fear of consequences imposed by the United States,” Klein said.
Friedman, who was largely unknown in the organized Jewish community before joining the Trump campaign, has been reaching out to Jewish officials recently, even before being announced as Trump’s pick for ambassador to Israel. But in the meetings and discussions, Friedman has made no attempt to bridge the gaps with the liberal wing of the community. Last week he met with members of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations in New York and laid out, according to a Jewish leader who attended the meeting, his belief that America should move beyond discussing the issue of occupation and highlight what he sees as Palestinian refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state.
Friedman’s position is ‘no friends on the left’, which makes J Street – executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami above – foremost among his enemies. Photo from J Street
The newly appointed ambassador, speaking in a closed forum in early December, was given the opportunity to retract his comments, made before the elections, stating that the left-leaning pro-Israel lobby J Street “are worse than kapos.” Friedman chose to stand behind his accusation comparing the left wing lobby’s actions to those of Jews who co-operated with the Nazis during the Holocaust.
J Street, under attack, sought to leverage Friedman’s disdain to the group into a mobilizing and fundraising effort.
“Trump’s newest pick said something about you,” read an email soliciting donations sent out by J Street Friday morning. The pitch, according to officials within the group, brought in tens of thousands of dollars within a few hours.
But the group is hoping for more than an end-of-year fundraising bonanza.
Since the announcement Thursday night, J Street has been working to mobilize its supporters in an effort to derail Friedman’s Senate confirmation. With Republicans in full control of the Senate, it is a tall order, which will require all Democrats to vote against Friedman’s confirmation as well as at least three Republican senators who will have to cross party lines.
J Street pitch targets mainstream Republicans warning them of the consequences a change in policy driven by Friedman would entail. “Given that Mr. Friedman’s hostility to a two-state solution is such a departure from longstanding bipartisan policy, we’re already starting to see real discomfort among many lawmakers from both parties about Mr. Friedman’s positions,” said Dylan Williams, the group’s vice president for government affairs.
One lawmaker to already speak out against Friedman is Democrat Jerrold Nadler from New York. “Mr. Friedman’s views and comments about a two-state solution are not only a total break from decades of American and Israeli policy, but are fundamentally out-of-step with the views of the majority of American Jews,” Nadler said in a statement. He noted that both J Street and AIPAC support a two-state solution.
But those looking, either in fear or in expectation, for a shift in American policy taking place in the near future as Friedman assumes his position, may have to wait.
On Friday, the Trump transition team already put a damper on Friedman’s promise to move the American embassy to Jerusalem. Jason Miller, Trump’s senior adviser made clear that while the president-elect still firmly supports moving the embassy to Jerusalem, it would be “premature” to present a timetable for such a move.
Meaning Friedman may have to at least start his term as ambassador in the same old Tel-Aviv office as his predecessors.
Contact Nathan Guttman at guttman@forward.com or on Twitter @nathanguttman
Summary: Trump appoints David Friedman as ambassador to Israel. Embassy likely to move to Jerusalem. Strong adverse reaction from liberal Jewish opinion.
Arab Digest, December 16, 2016
Yesterday 15 December Donald Trump’s transition team announced the nomination of David Friedman as US ambassador to Israel. Friedman is one of Trump’s lawyers, a bankruptcy specialist and Trump’s campaign adviser on Jewish world issues. He has described himself as a personal friend of Trump for fifteen years. According to the Times of Israel he is also president of American Friends of Bet El Institutions, an organization that supports a large West Bank settlement just outside Ramallah.
Trump said “The bond between Israel and the United States runs deep, and I will ensure there is no daylight between us when I’m President. As the United States’ Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman will maintain the special relationship between our two countries.” Friedman said “I intend to work tirelessly to strengthen the unbreakable bond between our two countries and advance the cause of peace within the region, and look forward to doing this from the U.S. embassy in Israel’s eternal capital, Jerusalem.”
The announcement contains a historical error, claiming that the US was the first country to recognise Israel formally in 1948. In fact the Soviet Union and some of its satellites beat them to it.
‘There hasn’t ever been a less experienced pick for US ambassador to Israel’ than David Friedman, ‘a hardline pro-Israel Orthodox Jew’, NY Daily News
Friedman’s reference to Jerusalem implies that Trump will carry out his declared intention of moving the US embassy there from Tel Aviv. This will be seen as a major change in US policy, effectively the end of support for a two state solution, although the logic of that is not clear.
The Jerusalem question is fiendishly complicated. Legally two important landmarks are a UN General assembly resolution of 1947 which called for Arab/Jewish partition with Jerusalem established as a corpus separatum, and UN Security Council resolution 478 of 1980 (which has mandatory force) condemning Israel’s claim to Jerusalem as its capital. Politically international refusal to recognise Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, and therefore to place embassies there, has symbolised the determination of the international community to seek an agreed settlement to the Arab/Israel dispute. The status of Jerusalem can only be determined as part of that agreement. It is commonly assumed that Jerusalem might then become capital of both Israel and the new state of Palestine.
No major foreign embassies have ever been located in Jerusalem, though the Netherlands and some Latin Americans were there until 1980, and Costa Rica and El Salvador were there until 2006.
Friedman was asked by Ha’aretz in June whether Trump would support an independent Palestinian state; “The answer is – not without the approval of the Israelis. If the Israelis don’t want to do it, so he doesn’t think they should do it. … He does not think it is an American imperative for it to be an independent Palestinian state.”
The appointment (the announcement came late yesterday) is likely to be welcomed by Netanyahu and the Israeli right, but has been promptly condemned from the left. According to the Times of Israel J Street, which describes itself as the political home for pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans, has declared that it “is vehemently opposed to the nomination of David Friedman. This nomination is reckless, putting America’s reputation in the region and credibility around the world at risk.” The National Jewish Democratic Council tweeted: “Trump must stand for a strong US-Israel relationship and take it seriously. [There] hasn’t ever been a less experienced pick for US ambassador to Israel.” Friedman last May accused J Street supporters of being “far worse than kapos” — Jews who assisted the Nazis during the Holocaust.
We have seen no Arab reactions yet. They are likely to be critical, particularly from the Palestinians (both Palestinian institutions and other Palestinians who are present throughout the Arab media). But many Arabs refuse to interest themselves in Israeli/US politics, remaining in denial on the basis that “they are all the same”. Commenting on Trump’s remarks in Cincinnati which we considered yesterday 15 December, and writing before the announcement about Friedman, the Singapore-based commentator James Dorsey listed the problems Trump’s policy may face in the Middle East [see below] including; • Israel and Palestine: A policy that is less critical of Israeli policy towards the West Bank and Gaza and that moves away from support for the creation of an independent Palestinian state will complicate relations with the Arab and Muslim world. It will also further undermine the pro-peace faction led by President Mahmoud Abbas and strengthen Islamist groups such as Hamas.
The Rise of Trump and Its Global Implications
Trump’s Middle East: Back to the Future
By James M. Dorsey, RSIS (S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies)
December 15, 2016
Synopsis
President-elect Donald J. Trump’s clearest indication yet of his policy approach towards the Middle East and North Africa was tucked into a recent thank-you speech in Cincinnati. It is a transaction-based return to support of autocracy that is likely to tie him into knots and reinforce drivers of militancy and political violence.
Commentary
IN A little-noticed thank you speech in Cincinnati, a stop on his tour of battleground states that secured his electoral victory, President-elect Donald J. Trump recently vowed to break with past United States efforts to “topple regimes and overthrow governments” in the Middle East and North Africa. Trump was likely referring to costly US military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq that toppled the Taliban and Saddam Hussein but failed to produce stable regimes while giving half-hearted US support for democracy and the strengthening of civil society.
“Our goal is stability not chaos… We will partner with any nation that is willing to join us in the effort to defeat ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism… In our dealings with other countries, we will seek shared interest wherever possible and pursue a new era of peace, understanding and goodwill,” Trump said. In effect, the president-elect was reiterating long standing US policy without the lip service past US presidents paid to US values such as democracy, human rights, freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Traumatic Consequences
It was a policy that backfired with traumatic consequences for the US. President George W. Bush, in a rare recognition of the pitfalls of decades of US policy in the Middle East and North Africa, acknowledged within weeks of the 9/11 attacks that support for autocratic regimes that squashed all expressions of dissent had created the feeding ground for jihadist groups focused on striking at Western targets.
That was no more true then than it is today with significantly stepped-up repression across the Middle East fuelling civil strife, humanitarian catastrophes, and the swelling the ranks of militant and jihadist groups.
If anything, Trump’s seemingly status quo-based, transactional approach to the Middle East and North Africa risks exacerbating the drivers of violence and militancy in the region and threatens to enmesh his administration in a labyrinth of contradictory pressures.
One lesson that emerges from post-World War Two North Africa and the Middle East is that the region will go to any length to ensure that it is a focus of attention. US administrations come to office with lofty goals and ambitions, only to see their agenda driven by acts on the ground in the region. The Trump administration is unlikely to fare any better.
Multiple pitfalls
The pitfalls are multiple, as follows:
• Syria: Backed by Russia and Iran, Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad may be gaining the upper hand in the country’s brutal six-year war, but that is likely to prove a pyrrhic victory. The likelihood of Syria returning territorially and politically to the pre-war status quo ante is nil. Al-Assad’s Alawites like Syrian Kurds will not see their safety and security guaranteed by a Syrian state dominated by remnants of the old-regime.
Al-Assad, with a long list of scores to settle, moreover will be damaged goods for whom the knives will be out once the guns fall silent. And that silence will at best be temporary with foreign forces covertly and overtly continuing to intervene. Not to mention the fallout of an angry, disillusioned generation that has known nothing but brutality, violence and despair and has nothing to lose.
• Russia: A partnership with Russia may initially reshape Syria but will be troubled by radically different views of Iran. While Russia backs Iran, Trump has promised to take a harder line towards the Islamic republic even if he stops short of terminating the nuclear agreement concluded by the Obama administration and the international community.
• Islamic State: Bringing Russia on board in a concerted allied effort to destroy IS will contribute to depriving the jihadist group of its territorial base in Iraq and Syria but will do little to help put the two countries back together as nation states. Nor will it address underlying drivers of jihadist violence fuelled by disenfranchisement, marginalisation, repression, regimes that fail to deliver economic and social goods, and the unilateral re-writing of social contracts.
• Egypt: Blinded by a focus on the fight against jihadism, support for general-turned-president Abdel Fatah Al-Sisi, one of the country’s most repressive rulers, could prove to be an example of the pitfalls of uncritical backing of autocracy as dissatisfaction mounts with failed economic and social policies.
• Israel and Palestine: A policy that is less critical of Israeli policy towards the West Bank and Gaza and that moves away from support for the creation of an independent Palestinian state will complicate relations with the Arab and Muslim world. It will also further undermine the pro-peace faction led by President Mahmoud Abbas and strengthen Islamist groups such as Hamas.
Quintessential Approacha
In many ways, Trump represents a quintessential approach towards foreign policy expressed by a US diplomat 40 years ago as he defended autonomy agreed at the time by Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat as the response to Palestinian aspirations. Questioned about the viability of the concept, the diplomat said with no consideration of the consequences and cost of failure: “We Americans are very pragmatic. We keep on trying. If one thing doesn’t work, we try something else.”
To be sure, Trump has yet to articulate a cohesive Middle East policy. The president-elect has nonetheless promised “a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past.”
In many ways, Trump’s statements hold out the promise of harking back to a policy that was first seriously dented by the 9/11 attacks and ultimately punctured by the popular Arab revolts of 2011 and their aftermath.
Trump’s foreign policy and national security line-up raises the spectre of an approach to the Middle East and North Africa that will further stir the region’s demons and set the scene for an administration policy that is driven by events on the ground rather than a cohesive, thought-out strategy.
James M. Dorsey PhD is Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University and co-director of the Institute of Fan Culture of University of Würzburg, Germany
Analysis: Trump’s ambassador pick is cause for Netanyahu to celebrate
David Friedman is the anti-Martin Indyk.
By Herb Keinon, JPost
December 16, 2016
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could have been excused for dancing a jig in Friday morning’s wee hours when US President-elect Donald Trump announced his long-time bankruptcy lawyer David Friedman as nominee for Washington’s next ambassador to Israel.
For Friedman is the anti-Martin Indyk, the anti-Daniel Kurtzer, two former Jewish ambassadors to Israel who often obsessed about the settlements.
Kurtzer and Indyk – when they served as ambassadors and when they left to take other positions – saw construction anywhere beyond the Green Line as the main hurdle to Mideast peace. Friedman – the president of American Friends of Bet El Institutions – takes a completely opposing view.
Current Ambassador Dan Shapiro has faithfully towed the Obama administration’s line opposing the settlements, but never with the same degree of vehemence as Kurtzer, or especially as Indyk. And Indyk was no bit-player in the administration’s Mideast policy. He served as John Kerry’s special envoy in 2013 and 2014 when the US secretary of state launched his failed attempt to solve the Mideast conflict in nine months.
During that period and after, Indyk – who was ambassador here twice, once when Netanyahu was prime minister from 1995 to 1997, and again briefly during the reigns of Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon from 2000 to 2001 – never hid his distaste for Netanyahu and his policies.
And now comes Friedman, a man who questions whether a two-state solution is realistic, who favours construction in the settlements, who wants to move the US embassy to Jerusalem and who detests J Street. Going from Indyk as a central interlocutor to Friedman, Netanyahu must feel that he has died and gone to heaven.
It is not that Friedman will be setting policy. There is a big difference between the power to set policy – which is Trump’s – and influence. But Friedman will definitely have influence.
As Trump’s trusted bankruptcy lawyer, Friedman is undeniably close to the president-elect and will be able to whisper into his ear. And what he will whisper into Trump’s ear is sure to be quite different from what some veteran hands in the State Department will be saying.
The left-wing J Street lobbying organization, predictably, decried the nomination, with its president Jeremy Ben-Ami posting on Twitter that Friedman “is anathema to values that underlie US-Israel relationship,” and that the group will “fight this with all we’ve got.”
His anger is understandable, since Friedman wrote during the summer that J Street was worse than kapos, Jews who turned fellow Jews over to the Nazis.
the next president will be hear more from people like Friedman than from people like Ben-Ami.
Writing on the Arutz Sheva website, Friedman said: “The kapos faced extraordinary cruelty, and who knows what any of us would have done under those circumstances to save a loved one? But J Street? They are just smug advocates of Israel’s destruction delivered from the comfort of their secure American sofas – it’s hard to imagine anyone worse.”
J Street’s influence and power over the last eight years flowed in large part from its closeness and access to US President Barack Obama and his advisors. That access will now be cut off, and the next president will be hear more from people like Friedman than from people like Ben-Ami.
An argument has been made that Friedman’s appointment might make political life difficult for Netanyahu, because with an US ambassador to his right – closer to the worldview of Bayit Yehudi head Naftali Bennett than to his own – he will no longer be able to make excuses to the Right as to why he is not building in the settlements.
But given a choice between an ambassador who takes issue with any home built in any Jewish community beyond the Green Line – be it in east Jerusalem, Gush Etzion or Itzhar – and one who will not send cables to Washington advocating a harsh State Department response for every new home, it is safe to assume that Netanyahu prefers the latter.
It is easier for a prime minister to deal with domestic political problems than to deal with full-blown international condemnation supported by Washington.
Jerusalem did not applaud the appointment earlier in the week of ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson as the next secretary of state. Not because of anything against Tillerson – nothing is known of his positions on Israel – but because so much was known and liked about the other candidates mentioned: Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John Bolton.
While there is no comparison between the power and importance of the secretary of state and that of ambassador to Israel, Friedman’s appointment provides some of the unswerving support for the current government’s policies that does not seem to be a major part of Tillerson’s thinking. Cause enough for Netanyahu to celebrate.
LINKS
See also
Revenge is sweet
JfJfP posting, November 13th, 2016Trump names Jewish bankruptcy lawyer who backs settlements as US ambassador to Israel
David Friedman is known as a hardliner who questions the need for a two-state solution
Jewish Chronicle, December 16th, 2016Will Trump’s ambassador pick box in Netanyahu from the right?
Jewish Journal, December 16th, 2016 (Will Trump’s choice of ambassador box in Netanyahu from a position on Netanyahu’s right?)Trump’s Pick For Ambassador To Israel: ‘End The 2-State Narrative’, NPR, Dec. 16th, 2016
Trump Picks David Friedman As Ambassador To Israel
The attorney’s far-right views could prove to be controversial.
Huffington Post, December 15th, 2016Donald Trump Taps One of His Lawyers as Ambassador to Israel
Mr. Friedman, in a statement, said he was honored by the appointment and he looked “forward to doing this from the U.S. embassy in Israel’s eternal capital, Jerusalem.”
WSJ, Dec. 15th, 2016Trump’s top adviser on Israel to become ambassador to Tel Aviv
According to his views, the US must not impose any solutions on Israel or oppose its use of violent methods against the Palestinians to protect its citizens.
Palestinian Information Centre, November 11th, 2016