What the Vance Visit Revealed About U.S. and Israeli Politics

Vice President Vance meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel to discuss the Gaza peace agreement. Photo courtesy of JD Vance.

The United States’ October 21st diplomatic trip to Israel, led by Vice President JD Vance, Jared Kushner, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, was meant to be a show of unity to reinforce the Gaza peace plan. Instead, it exposed just how internally factionalized both allies have become.

Upon arrival in the Holy Land, Vance, who is considered one of the more isolationist figures in the Republican Party, appeared optimistic about the peace deal, stating that it was moving “faster than expected.” Within the Republican Party, where the divide between isolationist and pro-Israel camps has been widening, his tone was especially significant in that it signaled a show of unwavering unity with Israel. Addressing Israeli and U.S. reporters, Vance emphasized that Israel is not a subordinate actor but a genuine and important partner: “We don’t want a vassal state, and that’s not what Israel is,” he said. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu echoed this sentiment of Israeli self-sovereignty, declaring that “Israel is the one that will decide on its security.” Indeed, the following day, Israeli parliamentarians made a unilateral move that, to the Americans, likely felt like a serious breach of trust.

One of the central tenets of Trump’s plan, as originally proposed, was an explicit guarantee that Israel would not annex the West Bank. In early October, Trump promised that he would “not allow” such an action, warning that “Israel will lose all of its support from the United States if that happens.” In another press conference, Trump commented on the highly contested region, adding, “There has been enough—it’s time to stop now,” suggesting that any move toward annexation would only invite further turmoil in a region that is already extremely fragile.

However, on October 22nd, the Knesset advanced two bills signaling its intent to move forward with annexing the West Bank, an act in direct defiance of the Trump administration’s desires. The bills sought to formalize Israel’s control over disputed territories. One bill would extend Israeli civil law to all Jewish settlements in the West Bank and the other would move to annex a major settlement bloc called Ma’ale Adumim. The vote was the first of four needed to pass the bills into law.

The vote’s timing, coming just a day before Vance took off, cast a shadow over what had been promoted as a goodwill visit. Standing on the tarmac at Ben Gurion Airport before boarding Air Force Two, Vance condemned the move as “a very stupid political stunt” and acknowledged that, while it was likely symbolic, it was still “personally insulting” given all the fiscal, military, and political lifelines America has extended throughout the years.

The move toward annexation was undoubtedly extremely reckless on Israel's part. Israel needs America firmly on its side, not only to finalize a deal but also to withstand an inconceivable wave of international condemnation and aggression. It also needs to preserve the fragile ties it has built with regional partners like the UAE, which has publicly warned that annexing the West Bank would cross a “red line” that would force it to reevaluate its relationship with the Jewish state.

It becomes clear that annexing the West Bank, especially now, defies logic on every diplomatic front. So what possible reason could the parliamentarians have for advancing such provocative legislation? 

At first glance, one might assume that the bills were the work of Netanyahu and his right-wing coalition, ever eager to fulfill the dream of uniting Israel with Judea and Samaria. 

Oddly enough, the legislation that was pushed forward excluded the support of Likud (Netanyahu’s party). Netanyahu called the vote “a deliberate political provocation by the opposition to sow discord during Vice President JD Vance’s visit to Israel.” Only one Likud lawmaker, Yuli Edelstein, supported the bills—and he was swiftly removed from his position on the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee as punishment. Moreover, the bills were backed by Netanyahu’s political rivals, including left-leaning centrists and far-right ideological extremists. Some of these extremists, although part of Netanyahu’s broader coalition, have long set their sights on the West Bank.

In an effort to placate the U.S. and the Arab states, Netanyahu wrote on X that “without Likud support, these bills are unlikely to go anywhere.” Still, the optics are disastrous for the Knesset.

The events in the Knesset offered the clearest demonstration yet that Israel’s far right has little to no regard for international perception or diplomatic consequence. Itimar Ben Gvir, the head of the ideologically extreme party “Jewish Power,” said after voting for annexation that “the right-wing government is doing what is right for the residents of the State of Israel. And what is right for the residents of the State of Israel is sovereignty now.” His statement captures a core sentiment among the far-right bloc: that international diplomacy and alliance management are distractions, not priorities.

The motivations of the centrist leaders who voted in favor of these bills are far less straightforward. Yair Lapid, the Knesset’s Leader of the Opposition, voted in favor of annexation despite having long supported a two-state solution and having recently praised Trump’s plan for Gaza as “an opportunity like never before to free the hostages [and] end the war.” Benny Gantz, the other major leader of the opposition, although supportive of small security-based annexations, has stated he would reject any larger plan unless it had global support and was agreed upon nationally. At present, neither of those criteria has been fulfilled. To make it abundantly clear, neither opposition leader genuinely supports annexing the West Bank in the sweeping form outlined in the legislation.

Thus, it seems like the opposition's singular goal was to undermine Netanyahu. The logic is as follows: anything that happens in Israel, good or bad, directly affects how Netanyahu is viewed by the United States, where his political credibility depends on his personal relationship with Trump. In America’s current political climate, that relationship is the alliance. Undermining it, even through symbolic legislation, hurts Netanyahu far more than internal condemnation ever could. As one opposition source told The Times of Israel, “The opposition dictated the agenda today, caused cracks in the coalition, showed how weak the prime minister is, made it clear to everyone that there is a minority government in Israel—and that’s the job of an opposition.”

This dynamic aligns neatly with an article by Victor Cha, the President of the Geopolitics and Foreign Policy Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The article, which observes how Trump judges allies through defense spending and trade balances, also notes that Trump operates on a ‘leader-to-leader logic’ rather than viewing alliances as enduring institutional commitments. By this view, Trump’s treatment of Israel is largely shaped by his perception of Netanyahu. Subsequently, Israel's actions, whether symbolic or substantive, reflect on Netanyahu, not ‘Israel’ abstractly. For the opposition who wants to expose Netanyahu’s weaknesses, embarrassing Israel in Washington is a highly effective—albeit reckless—way to do it.

While political games unfolded inside the Knesset, the divide within the American delegation was just as telling. Vance’s itinerary notably excluded a visit to Judaism's most holy site, the Western Wall. Instead, Vance visited only the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, where a photo-op was conducted. A little over a month earlier, Marco Rubio––praised by Trump as the “Greatest Secretary of State in the history of our country” for his handling of the Middle East––visited the Western Wall wearing a kippa (a small hat traditionally worn by Jewish people) alongside Netanyahu and Israel’s head rabbis. The messaging couldn't have been clearer: Rubio represented continuity and alignment with the pro-Israel status quo, while Vance projected the defiance of an isolationist movement increasingly infused with white and Christian nationalism. 

As Tablet’s Adam Lehrer reported in The Scroll, this isolationist faction, amplified by figures such as podcasters Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes, along with Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts, has grown increasingly vocal in urging Republicans to distance themselves from Jewish influence and from Israel as a country. Vance evidently has associated himself with this anti-Israel and often antisemitic wing; for example, Vance guest-hosted Carlson, who has been described as “the most important mainstreamer of antisemitism on the right,” on a September episode of the Charlie Kirk Show. The appearance followed Charlie Kirk’s memorial, where Carlson warned Americans to beware of “a bunch of guys sitting around eating hummus” who, he claimed, killed Jesus. He has since routinely portrayed Israel as a manipulative actor that leeches on American resources. Vance, for his part, has offered only evasive or half-hearted answers when pressed by conservatives about Israel—most notably during his Turning Point USA appearance at the University of Mississippi, where students repeatedly challenged him. He is likely being as openly anti-Israel as he feels he can be, at least while serving as Trump’s vice president.

Considering his increasing distance from the ally, Vance’s description of Israel as a partner rather than a vassal takes on new meaning. It seems he may have been laying the groundwork for a narrative in which Israel can stand on its own, without U.S. support—a message likely to appeal to isolationist-oriented voters. His itinerary reinforced that idea: by visiting only the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, he signaled a connection to the land rooted in its Christian significance rather than political allegiance to Israel’s leadership. In doing so, he threads a careful needle—affirming Israel’s sovereignty (which is pleasing to the pro-Israel eye) while suggesting that, at the very least, America’s support need not be unconditional.

Thus, America’s late October visit to Israel became a stage on which all political actors revealed where their priorities lie. On the Israeli side, the opposition in the Knesset appeared more focused on undermining Netanyahu than on presenting a unified front before Israel’s most important ally. For the Americans, an internal rift was equally apparent. Vice President Vance, who is widely speculated to be positioning himself for a 2028 presidential run, seemed to signal that he may lean further into isolationism once free from the constraints of office, particularly with respect to Israel. 

As political currents shift within local and state governments across the United States—most notably with the election of figures such as Zohran Mamdani in New York, who has been outspoken in his criticism of Israel and even pledged to arrest Netanyahu if he sets foot in the city during his term—Jerusalem faces a growing number of determined critics on both sides of the aisle. In this changing landscape, Israel would be wise not to take the American alliance for granted; while the Trump era may still offer favorable conditions, the future may not be as friendly.

Nicole Wizman (CU ’26) is a columnist from Los Angeles, California. She studies political science and psychology, and is interested in national security, Middle East policy, and legal reform. She can be reached at nw2510@columbia.edu.