Washington: The U.S.’s refusal to clarify its stance on Israel’s reported plan to occupy Gaza fully, as articulated by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, ostensibly threatens to derail ceasefire prospects and escalates regional chaos. In an August 7, 2025, interview with EWTN’s The World Over, Rubio outlined the Gaza crisis’s complexity—humanitarian suffering, 20 hostages held by Hamas, and Hamas’s existential threat to Israel—yet the U.S.’s silence on Israel’s takeover intentions leaves it as an ineffective mediator in a conflict desperate for decisive leadership.
Rubio sees the Gaza crisis as a three-pronged challenge requiring equal attention. On humanitarian needs, he pledged, “The United States stands prepared to contribute toward any real effort that will actually get food and medicine and life-sustaining aid to people on the ground in Gaza.” However, this commitment lacks force without a position on Israel’s reported occupation plan. When asked directly if occupation is the right approach, Rubio deflected, stating, “Ultimately, what Israel needs to do for Israel’s security will be determined by Israel.” This vagueness, while respecting Israel’s autonomy, avoids confronting the implications of a full takeover, weakening U.S. influence in ceasefire talks.
The hostage crisis, Rubio emphasised, is underreported: “There are 20 innocent people being held hostage and starved inside of tunnels. Unfortunately, there aren’t daily cameras down there covering that, and so you don’t see the mainstream media covering it.” He views this as a critical issue, but U.S. indecision on Israel’s plans fails to pressure Hamas for their release. On Hamas, Rubio was unequivocal: “As long as Hamas exists, particularly exists as an armed organisation – there will never be peace in Gaza… Their reason for existing, is they want to destroy Israel. They want to drive every Jew out of the Middle East.” This conviction underscores his demand for Hamas’s disarmament, yet the U.S.’s silence on the occupation leaves the strategy incomplete.
Hamas’s refusal to negotiate ceasefire terms exploits international divisions, which Rubio believes are exacerbated by allies’ actions. When questioned about Canada, France, and the UK’s moves toward Palestinian statehood recognition, he argued, “The talks with Hamas fell apart on the day [French President Emannuel] Macron made the unilateral decision that he’s going to recognise the Palestinian state… They think they’re winning the global PR war. They’re not willing to make any concessions.” Rubio’s critique highlights how such gestures embolden Hamas, but the U.S.’s own failure to address Israel’s takeover plan similarly allows Hamas to capitalise on a lack of unified pressure.
When pressed on whether statehood recognition rewards Hamas, Rubio responded firmly: “Recognition – absolutely… You can’t have a state or even an autonomous region unless you can identify who’s going to run it. And if it’s going to be run by Hamas, you’re going to be right back into war.” He cited Israel’s 2005 Gaza withdrawal as a warning: “Israel turned over Gaza, turned it over completely with greenhouses and all kinds of things. And they elected Hamas. Hamas destroyed it, built tunnels instead of hospitals.” This history, echoed by the Arab League’s call for Hamas to disarm, reinforces Rubio’s scepticism of premature statehood. Yet, the U.S. offers no alternative governance vision, leaving a diplomatic gap that stalls progress.
Rubio’s interpretation positions the U.S. as committed to Israel’s security and Gaza’s humanitarian needs but cautious of moves that could derail peace. However, by sidestepping Israel’s reported takeover plan, the U.S. risks alienating allies pushing statehood and failing to counter Hamas’s defiance. Rubio’s focus on aid, hostages, and disarming Hamas is pragmatic, but without a clear stance on Israel’s intentions, it’s mere rhetoric in a region crying out for U.S. leadership to break the deadlock.
-global bihari bureau
