By: Prof. Dr. Mohsen Mohammad Saleh. The recent statement by Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador to Israel, regarding Israel’s purported right to occupy the Arab and Islamic lands from the Nile to the Euphrates was not a mere verbal misstep. Huckabee is an ordained Baptist pastor and an Evangelical Christian Zionist who has, for decades, grounded his political positions in biblical interpretations. In his interview with Tucker Carlson, he explicitly invoked a religious text from the Book of Genesis to substantiate his claim. Moreover, Huckabee does not regard Israel’s presence in the West Bank (WB) as an occupation, contrary to the official position of his own government, preferring instead the biblical designation “Judea and Samaria.” He has gone further still, asserting that Israel holds a “title deed” to the WB. Mike Huckabee… A Deliberate Appointment and a Ready-Made Cover: These positions were well known to Donald Trump well before Huckabee’s appointment as US ambassador to Israel. Trump was fully cognizant of Huckabee’s longstanding and extensive advocacy of Israeli occupation, rooted in a Christian evangelical Zionist worldview. Moreover, Huckabee enjoys a solid evangelical support base. He previously served as Governor of Arkansas and was a candidate for the US presidency in 2008 and 2016. Furthermore, during his Senate confirmation hearing, he reaffirmed the substance of his prior statements, underscoring the consistency of the ideological outlook he would carry into his diplomatic role. Accordingly, Huckabee’s appointment cannot be regarded as a mere procedural formality, nor can his statements be dismissed as passing remarks. The US Department of State’s assertion that these views were purely personal and did not reflect official US policy lacks credibility, particularly in light of the absence of any disciplinary measures and the fact that he continued to discharge his duties without interruption. Notably, when he made those statements, he was not on leave in the US; rather, he was actively discharging his official duties, physically present at the “heart of the conflict” and serving as US ambassador within Israel. This raises an obvious counterfactual. How would the US Department of State respond if a US ambassador were to declare, as a matter of “personal conviction,” grounded in religious or ideological belief, that Palestine belongs to the Palestinian people and constitutes an Arab and Islamic land from the river to the sea?! Would the Department issue a similar statement affirming respect for his “personal opinion” and permit him to remain in office? Or would it instead act swiftly to censure and dismiss him, thereby making an example of him?! US Administration Mentality… Not Individual Behavior: Huckabee’s conduct, along with that of the US State Department, reflects the evangelical Christian orientation of President Trump and his administration; it is not merely individual behavior but indicative of the current US governance system itself. Trump has repeatedly maintained that Israel is small relative to the territory it deserves, while consistently rejecting a two-state solution, disregarding the Oslo Accords, and ignoring international resolutions concerning Palestine. He has actively supported settlement expansion, for example, by inviting a delegation of Israeli Jewish settler leaders from West Bank settlements (Yesha Council) to his inauguration, and at one point called for the displacement of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip (GS), retracting only for pragmatic reasons tied to halting the war, implementing his plan in the GS, engaging Arab and Muslim states, and advancing the peace process and the Abraham Accords. Several members of Trump’s presidential team are aligned with Evangelical Christian Zionism, most prominently Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. Therefore, the significance of these statements lies less in any contradiction with Huckabee’s views than in the fact that they do not necessarily reflect the prevailing mindset of the US government. They differ primarily in judging that the timing was premature and that such positions were ill-suited to the current context. On the other hand, these statements closely reflect the expansionist and racially charged mindset of Israel’s current government, the most extreme since the state’s founding. This government has advanced significantly in its efforts to consolidate control over al-Aqsa Mosque, Jerusalem and the WB, moving forward with official annexation measures. These statements are also consistent with the positions articulated by the Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Prime Minister Netanyahu regarding a “Greater Israel.” Setting the Stage: This indicates a deliberate effort to frame the annexation of the WB and the idea of “Greater Israel” not merely as “popular rhetoric” but as tangible political proposals, placed on the table, open to debate, and gradually normalized among both the public and governing elites. The strategy effectively moves these concepts from the “realm of aspiration” into the “realm of possibility,” irrespective of their immediate feasibility. A similar trajectory has been observed with previously floated measures that later assumed far more serious and perilous forms, such as the displacement of Palestinians or the dismantling of the Palestinian Authority (PA)… Israel and the US appear largely indifferent to official Arab states, treating them as a “low barrier” to be circumvented, fully confident that their objections will rarely extend beyond symbolic protests, even though Huckabee’s statements strike at the very core of Arab national security. Indeed, the responses of Arab and Muslim states have remained largely confined to formal condemnations and public statements. Arab Regimes and National Security: Finally, Huckabee’s statements must be taken seriously and understood within the broader context of the US-Zionist project in the region. Arab states must recognize that, ultimately, their national security and very existence are at risk, regardless of whether they normalize relations with Israel, accept US dominance, operate within the US strategic framework, suppress their populations, crack down on “political Islam,” constrain resistance movements, or place their wealth in US and Western banks. The ultimate target remains the whole strategic environment, including Arab and Muslim countries; their land and holy sites. As long as these regimes avoid genuine reassessment of their policies, fail to reconcile with their populations, and do not clearly define their strategic priorities and overarching interests, the Zionist project will continue to expand. Meanwhile, popular frustration and resentment will grow, driven by a mounting sense of insecurity and doubt in the regimes’ ability to protect their land and people, opening fertile ground for transformative change.
Al-Zaytouna Centre for Studies and Consultations, 28/2/2026
The opinions expressed in all the publications and studies are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of al-Zaytouna Centre. | 
No comments:
Post a Comment