Rubio’s Israel Trip Coincides with Controversial Actions on Israel’s Part
Marco Rubio’s recent visit to Israel couldn’t have had worse timing. As he donned a yarmulke and offered prayers at the Western Wall, he reassured his hosts of America’s steadfast dedication to their cause. His journey, commencing on a Sunday, coincided with Israel’s escalation of air strikes in Qatar aimed at disrupting peace talks initiated by the Hamas negotiators. Furthermore, Israel intensified their demolition of Gaza City residences around the same time period.
Meanwhile, pressed by the grave developments on the ground, Qatar invited Arab leaders for an urgent meeting to discuss and form a joint reaction to the recent air raids. Right in the middle of Rubio’s sojourn, news broke that another Israeli attack was executed with prior briefing to President Donald Trump, directly contradicting White House’s previous statements. As Rubio wound up his trip, Israel began a contentious ground attack on Gaza City attracting criticism from the international community.
On a day fraught with tension, a UN commission released its findings – directly accusing Israel of perpetrating a genocide against Palestinians. In an unprecedented press conference, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu nonchalantly stated that he might authorize more attacks if necessary. In the wake of the mounting criticisms and shifting global sentiment, Netanyahu overtly appreciated Rubio and the U.S. for their unwavering stance in support of Israel’s self-defense rights.
Netanyahu’s words, read between the lines, revealed his cognizance of the turning tide of international opinion against Israel. There’s a rising consensus among Western countries, led notably by France, to officially recognize Palestine as a state in the forthcoming UN session. Recognition of Palestine as a sovereign nation is not a new concept, as most of the world is already advocating for it and is pressurizing Israel to follow suit.
A sizeable majority of UN General Assembly members recently voted in favor of a two-state resolution meant to resolve the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Yet, Netanyahu has a different agenda: to eradicate Gaza, assume full control over the West Bank, and eliminate potential threats in the region.
Netanyahu’s omnipresence in the public sphere following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk lends credence to the significance of his vision. Kirk, a staunch pro-Israel evangelical lead of America’s largest conservative youth group, played a significant role in dampening growing animosity among young conservatives towards Israel. His absence could potentially be detrimental to Jerusalem’s strategic interests as the Boomer generation of consistent pro-Israel supporters in the West nears its end.
Rubio’s visit to Israel therefore appeared peculiarly timed and out of place. Despite the escalating turmoil, he, from Jerusalem, backed Israel’s pursuit of an absolute military triumph in Gaza rather than advocating for a diplomatic resolution.
In a similar vein, Israel launched an unanticipated attack against Iran just days before scheduled discussions between Washington and Tehran. While the U.S. was pursuing diplomacy and a potential nuclear deal, Israel appeared more inclined to confront and potentially topple Iran’s government. Consequently, one cannot overlook the looming threat of Israel potentially drawing America into another military conflict in the Middle East.
Simultaneously, American state legislators were congregating in Jerusalem for a conference. Discussions were primarily about the urgent need to ban anti-Israel boycotts, implement broader definitions of antisemitism, and challenge pro-Palestinian voices.
To much of the American public, Israel might seem to be under U.S. protection. But it is no surprise that some might contemplate whether this ‘special relationship’ has amounted to an unusual form of reverse colonialism. Prominent figures such as Pat Buchanan, magazine cofounder, have even branded Capitol Hill as ‘Israeli-occupied territory,’ further stirring the debate.
Former President Bill Clinton expressed his frustration back in 1996, seemingly baffled by Netanyahu’s presumptuous demeanor. He questioned his aides, ‘Who does he think he is? Who’s the superpower here?’ The query, while rhetorical, reflected a default assumption of America’s unrivaled status.
However, looking at the current geopolitical landscape, the question seems to have lost its potency. The pervasive and often exertive influence of Israel on the United States makes it seem as though the tables have turned: the ‘superpower’ status may now carry a sense of ambiguity, which is at the heart of the complex relationship between the two nations.