Former vice president and Naga City Mayor Leni Robredo has recently been the subject of scrutiny after photos of her diplomatic meeting with Israeli Ambassador to the Philippines Dana Kursh, dated October 5, sparked debate on whether the encounter amounted to “fence-sitting” or tacit support for Israel amid the ongoing humanitarian crisis and military operations in Palestine.
The Philippine News Agency previously reported that Kursh visited the Bicol region to explore bilateral cooperation and meet local leaders.
Now, a courtesy call does not automatically mean endorsement; that much is clear. A courtesy call varies by politician, but as the Philippine media usually reports, it involves a short, formal meeting that acknowledges leadership and builds rapport between the leaders present. But given Robredo’s big platform and public profile, it is not necessarily politically meaningless, either. In fact, it opened Pandora’s box, and has led to the topic of political purity and how criticism of an opposition is now seen as political sabotage in the country. Online, the issue drew a range of responses, including from Senator Kiko Pangilinan, activist and former lawmaker Teddy Casiño, and labor rights activist Leody de Guzman.
Between Purists and Pragmatists
Robredo has long been a symbol of hope for some, viewed as the face of the opposition, admired for her transparent leadership, “radical love,” and her wide set of advocacies for the poor and vulnerable. Many Filipinos see her as their unblemished savior, which carries with it a lot of loaded expectations, so it’s considerably valid to be disappointed or baffled by the meeting with a representative of a state involved in oppressing another — contrary to what she is known to advocate for.
Since the hosting, some users online have started branding her a “zionist,” and calling her the “lesser evil” compared to President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Vice President Sara Duterte. Netizens further pointed out that the Naga City Tourism Office publicized the visit on October 7, coinciding with Israel marking the third anniversary of the Hamas-led attacks and the start of the genocide in Palestine, and that the reception could be Israel’s way of “cleaning” their image in the Philippines.
The Philippines-Palestine Friendship Association (PPFA) issued an open call to Robredo, telling her to “not be complicit in the genocide.” According to the organization, “such official diplomatic visits cannot simply be treated as ‘business as usual’ when Palestinians continue to face a grave and unprecedented humanitarian crisis.” Kabataan Partylist Bicol also posted a statement, saying that they call on regional leaders to “account for their engagement with a state responsible for continuing genocide and occupation in Palestine.”
Labor rights activist and former presidential aspirant Leody de Guzman weighed in, seemingly mocking the situation by satirizing Robredo’s campaign slogan of “Kulay Rosas ang Bukas” and posting “Kulay Rosas ang Tel Aviv” on Facebook. He later defended himself after receiving backlash from her supporters: “Kapag nagbigay ng puna kay Leni, DDS na agad? Kengkoy niyo rin e. Mas malala pa kayo sa DDS. Malinaw ang aking bias. Lagi kong sinisikap na pumanig sa mga manggagawa’t maralita.”
This brought out Robredo’s supporters, who showed that they were against criticizing the mayor, saying that “unjust character assassination” only risks the opportunity to establish a competent and good government in 2028, defending her as the best bet for the presidency in 2028 against the Dutertes. This was despite Robredo’s repeated claims that she no longer intends to run for the presidential seat.
For those in defense of Robredo, too much criticism is “performative” and equates to unrealistic wokeness. The term “purity politics” or “moral absolutist” was also heavily used to accuse those criticizing the politician, a mindset that demands strict adherence to a specific or rigid set of political and moral values. But framing the controversy as a question of political purity misses the point, as the opposing side claims. Under this view, invoking pragmatism to discredit criticism risks normalizing political compromises that ultimately protect the same ruling elites the opposition claims to challenge.
Photos of other Filipino officials in national and local government who accepted Israeli envoys resurfaced on social media in defense of Robredo’s diplomatic meeting. Some questioned why “online activists” condemning Robredo’s actions had no say over the other leaders who engaged in similar courteous encounters.
Activist and former lawmaker Teddy Casino, meanwhile, justified the criticism. According to him, attributing malice or accusing “those who pointed out the lapse as being DDS, Marcos loyalists, or Leftists simply out to discredit her, or a conspiracy of all these groups, is unfair and just plain lazy thinking.” He pointed out that people held Robredo in high regard; thus, higher expectations were set for her.
What gets lost in This discourse?
Politics is not simply all-or-nothing. But questioning and criticizing Robredo on this big of an issue is warranted, and it only really suggests that democracy is working. After all, Filipinos should be able to hold even the leaders they find most regarded and well respected accountable. But social media tends to highlight the extremes and it makes everyone stray far from the issue at hand. The battle between the two extremes is already resulting in name-calling from both sides, further fragmenting the opposition, instead of elevating the discourse.
The Liberal Party urged the Filipinos to fairly assess the situation, claiming that there’s a difference between diplomatic union and supporting a state’s actions. “Walang naipakitang ebidensiya na sa pagtanggap sa embahador ay nagpahayag si Mayor Robredo ng pagsang-ayon sa mga operasyong militar ng Israel sa Gaza. Magkaiba ang pakikipag-ugnayang diplomatiko at pagsuporta sa mga patakaran ng isang pamahalaan,” they said.
Senator Kiko Pangilinan, who was Robredo’s running mate in the 2022 elections, acknowledged the criticisms but also defended the mayor. “Ang pagharap ng mayor sa isang opisyal ng ibang bansa na bumisita sa kanyang nasasakupan ay hindi pag-endorso ng mga gawain ng nasabing bansa at lalong hindi pag-endorso sa genocide,” he said.
As of this writing, Robredo has yet to address the issue surrounding her recent diplomatic meeting, as well as provide a clear stance on the genocide that has killed over 74,000 Palestinians.
frequently asked questions
Robredo’s October 5 courtesy call with Israeli Ambassador Dana Kursh drew criticism because it came amid Israel’s military operations in Gaza and clashed with her image as an advocate for the vulnerable. Critics see a diplomatic gesture with symbolic weight; defenders say a courtesy call is not an endorsement.
No, a courtesy call is a short, formal meeting that acknowledges leadership and builds rapport, and it does not automatically signal endorsement. The Liberal Party and Senator Kiko Pangilinan stressed this distinction, though netizens argue that a high-profile figure’s public engagement still carries political meaning.
Critics include the Philippines-Palestine Friendship Association, Kabataan Partylist Bicol, former lawmaker Teddy Casiño, and labor leader Leody de Guzman. Netizens also argue that the visit cannot be treated as business as usual during the humanitarian crisis in Palestine and that Robredo’s public stature raises expectations of accountability.
Purity politics asserts that politicians must strictly adhere to a specific or rigid set of political and moral values.
As of the article’s publication, Robredo has not addressed the controversy or stated a clear position on the war in Gaza. The Liberal Party and Senator Kiko Pangilinan have defended the meeting, saying that receiving an ambassador is diplomatic engagement and not an endorsement of military operations or genocide.
Recommended Video
