What shifts occurred in Ted Cruz's rhetoric on Israeli settlements and a two-state solution?
Executive summary
Ted Cruz has consistently positioned himself as a staunch defender of Israel and an opponent of external pressure on Israeli settlement policy, while at times resisting U.S. policy language endorsing a forced “two‑state” outcome; he co‑sponsored anti‑boycott legislation in 2017 and has repeatedly argued the U.S. should not dictate Palestinian statehood, removing his support from bills that added two‑state language [1] [2] [3]. He has also led efforts to punish international institutions that criticize Israel, including legislation to cut U.S. funding to the U.N. over UNSC Resolution 2334 [4].
1. From pro‑Israel advocacy to pushing back at U.S. mediation
Cruz’s record shows a steady, public tilt toward defending Israeli government positions and resisting U.S. pressure for territorial concessions. He co‑sponsored the Israel Anti‑Boycott Act in 2017, which sought to criminalize participation in boycotts of Israel and Israeli settlements [1]. That same orientation appears when he frames U.S. mediation as “counterproductive,” insisting Israel should decide its own security and territorial choices without American coercion [5] [2].
2. Active measures against international criticism of settlements
Cruz has translated rhetoric into legislative action aimed at shielding Israel from international censure. He and Sen. Lindsey Graham introduced the Safeguard Israel Act to cut U.S. funding to the U.N. until the body repealed UNSC Resolution 2334, which condemned settlement activity—an explicit move to punish multilateral criticism of settlements [4]. He has also led or supported other measures that signal Congressional hostility to external constraints on Israeli settlement policy [6] [7].
3. Rejecting “two‑state” language, blocking bipartisan bills
A notable rhetorical shift is Cruz’s resistance to embedding a U.S. policy favoring a two‑state outcome into law. He pulled co‑sponsorship and blocked consideration of Israel‑related normalization legislation after committees inserted language declaring U.S. policy to support Palestinian statehood, arguing it was improper for U.S. diplomats to “tell our Israeli allies what to do with their territories” [3]. He publicly stated the inclusion of “two‑state” language in S. Res. 709 was a “serious mistake,” even as he otherwise supported the bills’ aims [8].
4. Terminology and political signaling: “Judea and Samaria” vs. “occupied territories”
Sources note Cruz’s choice of language aligns with right‑wing Israeli factions: using biblical place names like Judea and Samaria rather than “occupied territories” signals ideological sympathy for Israeli sovereignty claims over the West Bank and implicitly rejects the legal framing that delegitimizes settlements [5]. That terminological choice is a political signal to conservative pro‑settlement constituencies and donors [9].
5. Two competing interpretations in the sources
One view, reflected in Cruz’s statements and press releases, holds that U.S. policy should avoid imposing solutions on a sovereign ally and that pressuring Israel incentivizes aggression—framing opposition to two‑state language as defense of Israeli security and sovereignty [3] [7]. Another view, advanced by advocacy groups and some reporting, interprets Cruz’s blocks and objections as abandonment of longstanding bipartisan U.S. support for a negotiated two‑state resolution and as alignment with a settlements‑friendly, far‑right Israeli agenda [10] [5].
6. Consistency and opportunism: legislative tactics and political context
Cruz’s record is consistent in opposing measures that explicitly endorse a U.S. push for Palestinian statehood while consistently backing strong military and diplomatic support for Israel [7] [11]. At the same time, sources suggest tactical opportunism: he has used senatorial prerogatives—holds and language fights—to extract concessions and to reframe bills to emphasize the Abraham Accords and U.S. support for Israel rather than Palestinian statehood [12] [3].
7. What available sources do not mention
Available sources do not mention a moment when Cruz formally endorsed a comprehensive, U.S.‑led two‑state peace plan or embraced U.S. mediation as the primary route to resolving settlements and statehood (not found in current reporting). They also do not provide polling data tying his rhetoric shifts to specific donor behavior, beyond reporting that his positions appeal to pro‑Israel donors [9].
8. Bottom line for readers
Ted Cruz’s rhetoric has shifted from general pro‑Israel advocacy into an explicit posture that rejects U.S. mandates for Israeli territorial concessions and resists enshrining support for a two‑state outcome in U.S. law; he pairs that stance with legislation aimed at insulating Israel from international criticism [1] [4] [3]. Sources disagree on whether this is principled defense of a sovereign ally or a partisan move aligning with the settlements lobby and right‑wing Israeli politics [5] [10].