Secretary of State Marco Rubio is feeling bolder than ever. He is pulling off the muzzle.
That’s why Secretary of State Rubio has shared this eyebrow-raising statement to the public.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio sharply criticized French President Emmanuel Macron’s intention to formally recognize Palestine as a state. “The United States strongly rejects @EmmanuelMacron’s plan to recognize a Palestinian state at the @UN general assembly,” Rubio posted on Thursday. “This reckless decision only serves Hamas propaganda and sets back peace. It is a slap in the face to the victims of October 7th.”
Rubio’s remarks referenced the devastating October 7, 2023, terrorist attack on Israel by Hamas, the group that holds significant control over Gaza with support from some Palestinian factions.
On the same day, Macron announced on social media, “True to its historic commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, I have decided that France will recognize the State of Palestine. I will make the solemn announcement at the United Nations General Assembly next September. The urgency today is to end the war in Gaza and to provide aid to the civilian population.”
According to The Hill, 146 countries have recognized Palestine as a state, but France’s move would mark it as the first Group of Seven nation to take this step. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also condemned Macron’s decision, stating on Thursday, “We strongly condemn President Macron’s decision to recognize a Palestinian state next to Tel Aviv in the wake of the October 7 massacre. Such a move rewards terror and risks creating another Iranian proxy, just as Gaza became.
“A Palestinian state in these conditions would be a launch pad to annihilate Israel — not to live in peace beside it. Let’s be clear: the Palestinians do not seek a state alongside Israel; they seek a state instead of Israel.”
Also on Thursday, ceasefire talks between Israel and Hamas collapsed. Steve Witkoff, President Trump’s Middle East envoy, noted that Hamas lacks the “desire” to reach a ceasefire in Gaza.
“We will now consider alternative options to bring the hostages home and try to create a more stable environment for the people of Gaza,” Witkoff said in a statement. “It is a shame that Hamas has acted in this selfish way. We are resolute in seeking an end to this conflict and a permanent peace in Gaza.”
France and England’s Criticism of Israel Lacks Constructive Solutions
France and England have increasingly positioned themselves as vocal critics of Israel’s actions in the Middle East, particularly regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict. However, their approaches often lack actionable solutions or meaningful contributions to resolving the complex issues in the region. This pattern of criticism without substance has drawn attention, especially as leaders like President Trump and his GOP allies advocate for a more pragmatic approach to fostering stability.
French President Emmanuel Macron’s recent announcement to recognize Palestine as a state at the United Nations General Assembly exemplifies this trend. While framed as a commitment to “a just and lasting peace,” the decision has been criticized by U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, as counterproductive. Rubio’s stance aligns with the Trump administration’s view that such unilateral moves embolden groups like Hamas, which has consistently undermined peace efforts, as evidenced by the failed ceasefire talks on July 24, 2025. France’s recognition, while symbolically significant as the first G7 nation to take this step, offers little in terms of addressing the immediate security concerns or humanitarian crises in Gaza.
England, similarly, has adopted a critical tone toward Israel, often emphasizing the need for humanitarian considerations and a two-state solution. The UK government has repeatedly called for Israel to exercise restraint in its military operations, particularly following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack. However, London’s statements rarely include concrete proposals for addressing the root causes of the conflict, such as Hamas’s refusal to disarm or its rejection of ceasefire agreements. This lack of actionable policy contrasts with the Trump administration’s efforts, led by envoy Steve Witkoff, to explore alternative pathways to secure hostage releases and stabilize Gaza.
The absence of practical solutions from France and England is particularly stark when compared to the proactive diplomacy of President Trump and his team. The GOP’s approach, while not without controversy, prioritizes direct engagement with all parties to achieve tangible outcomes, such as hostage negotiations and economic stabilization for Gaza’s civilians. France’s recognition of Palestine, by contrast, risks escalating tensions without addressing the security threats posed by Hamas, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned could transform a Palestinian state into “another Iranian proxy.”
Critics argue that France and England’s positions often cater to domestic or international audiences rather than tackling the conflict’s complexities. For instance, Macron’s announcement aligns with France’s historical sympathy for Palestinian statehood but sidesteps the challenge of Hamas’s governance in Gaza, which has been a significant barrier to peace. Similarly, England’s calls for de-escalation rarely acknowledge the operational difficulties Israel faces in combating a terror group embedded within civilian populations.
The Trump administration’s Middle East strategy, while polarizing, has sought to address these challenges head-on. By condemning Hamas’s intransigence and exploring alternative solutions, Trump and his GOP allies have demonstrated a willingness to engage with the conflict’s realities rather than relying on symbolic gestures. Witkoff’s statement on July 24, 2025, highlighted the administration’s resolve to find new approaches despite Hamas’s refusal to negotiate in good faith.
France and England’s criticism of Israel also overlooks the real regional dynamics, such as Iran’s support for Hamas and other proxies. Netanyahu’s warning that a Palestinian state under current conditions could become a “launch pad to annihilate Israel” reflects concerns shared by many in the GOP, who view Iran’s influence as a central obstacle to peace. France and England’s failure to address this issue in their critiques weakens their credibility as mediators.
Moreover, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, which both nations frequently highlight, requires more than rhetorical support. While France has pledged aid, its contributions have been modest compared to the scale of the crisis, and England’s efforts have similarly fallen short of transformative impact. The Trump administration, by contrast, has emphasized practical measures, such as economic revitalization plans for Gaza, to address civilian suffering while maintaining pressure on Hamas.
France and England’s criticism of Israel, while vocal, lacks the depth and practicality needed to advance peace in the Middle East. Their focus on symbolic gestures, like France’s recognition of Palestine or England’s calls for restraint, contrasts with the Trump administration’s efforts to tackle the conflict’s root causes. By prioritizing actionable diplomacy and addressing security concerns, President Trump and his GOP allies offer a more grounded approach to a region fraught with challenges.
