In the US Republican primaries, nothing exemplifies the nature of the Israeli connection to American political discourse better than Sen. Marco Rubio's tempest-in-a-teapot over leading Republican candidate Donald Trump saying that he intends to try to make peace between Israel and the Palestinians. And if that weren’t enough, in the Feb. 18 debate, Trump dared to say that it's not efficacious for a mediator in negotiations to declare unswerving support for one of the sides.

This sentence made Trump an unfair mediator in Rubio’s eyes, and he swore not to be neutral, saying, “I will be on Israel’s side every single day, because they are the only pro-American, free enterprise democracy in the entire Middle East.”

Several days earlier, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warmly welcomed former US Secretary of State George Shultz, who visited Jerusalem. In a speech in the Israel Democracy Institute, Netanyahu complimented the retired diplomat on his “vision and integrity” and ended with lofty words about Israel and the Jewish people never having a better friend. Yet according to the "Rubio index," Shultz’ friendship is questionable. Al-Monitor has discovered that the 95-year-old diplomat has recently consolidated a group of Israeli, Palestinian and American experts to discuss alternatives to the two-state solution, according to the Oslo Accord model. In the discussions, he has not concealed his disappointment in the policies of Israel’s right-wing government.

In terms of commitment to peace, Shultz is a visionary and also a real friend of Israel. Almost 30 years ago, he tried to promote a peace initiative crafted by Shimon Peres, then foreign minister in a unity government with the Likud, and Jordan's King Hussein bin Talal. The initiative, known as the London Agreement, was supposed to commence with an international convention, after which the sides would begin negotiations for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict on the basis of UN Resolutions 242 and 338. Despite US President Ronald Reagan’s pleas, Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir sabotaged the initiative. He wrote to Shultz on May 15 of that year that parts of the plan were “not consistent with our national interests.” As far as Shamir was concerned, Shultz was too neutral a mediator.