Meta Description: US Ambassador Mike Huckabee’s comments on Israel’s biblical right to land ‘from the Nile to the Euphrates’ have sparked outrage across the Muslim world. We analyse the diplomatic fallout, regional reactions, and what this means for the two-state solution.
In the hyper-sensitive arena of Middle Eastern geopolitics, words are never just words. They are laden with history, grievance, and the potential to shift diplomatic tectonic plates. This truth has been starkly illustrated in recent days following an explosive interview given by the US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee.
The career diplomat and former Governor of Arkansas has ignited a firestorm of condemnation across the Arab and Muslim world after appearing to endorse the concept of a "Greater Israel" spanning from the Nile River in Egypt to the Euphrates in Iraq. The remarks have not only angered key US allies but have also raised serious questions about the direction of American foreign policy in the region .
The Interview That Lit the Fuse
The controversy erupted during a sprawling, two-hour interview between Ambassador Huckabee and influential conservative podcaster Tucker Carlson. The conversation, intended to cover a range of issues, took a dramatic turn when the discussion shifted to the theological underpinnings of Israel's territorial claims.
Carlson, known for his critical stance on US foreign policy, pressed Huckabee on the biblical borders promised to the descendants of Abraham in the Book of Genesis. He specifically referenced the passage that describes land from the "river of Egypt" to the Euphrates .
It was here that Huckabee, a former Baptist minister and longtime evangelical supporter of Israel, made the statement that would reverberate across continents. When asked directly if Israel had the right to that vast expanse of land—which in modern terms would encompass not only Israel and the Palestinian territories but also parts of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey—Huckabee responded without hesitation: "It would be fine if they took it all" .
While the Ambassador later attempted to walk back the comments, describing them as "somewhat of a hyperbolic statement" and clarifying that Israel is "not asking to take all of that," the damage was done . For many in the region, the initial remark was not a gaffe, but a rare public articulation of a expansionist vision long suspected to exist in hardline circles.
What is 'Greater Israel'?
To understand the fury, one must understand the concept Huckabee invoked. "Greater Israel" (Eretz Yisrael HaShlema) is a term used in revisionist Zionist ideology to refer to the biblical borders of the Land of Israel. While interpretations vary, the most expansive definition includes the modern state of Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights, and significant portions of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt .
For Arab nations, this is not just ancient religious history; it is a living political nightmare. The concept is seen as a direct threat to their national sovereignty and territorial integrity. The reaction is particularly visceral in countries like Egypt and Jordan, which have peace treaties with Israel and consider themselves cornerstones of regional stability . When a sitting US ambassador appears to legitimise these maximalist claims, it is perceived in capitals like Cairo, Amman, and Riyadh as a seismic shift in the American stance.
To understand the fury, one must understand the concept Huckabee invoked. "Greater Israel" (Eretz Yisrael HaShlema) is a term used in revisionist Zionist ideology to refer to the biblical borders of the Land of Israel. While interpretations vary, the most expansive definition includes the modern state of Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights, and significant portions of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt .
For Arab nations, this is not just ancient religious history; it is a living political nightmare. The concept is seen as a direct threat to their national sovereignty and territorial integrity. The reaction is particularly visceral in countries like Egypt and Jordan, which have peace treaties with Israel and consider themselves cornerstones of regional stability . When a sitting US ambassador appears to legitimise these maximalist claims, it is perceived in capitals like Cairo, Amman, and Riyadh as a seismic shift in the American stance.
A Unified Wall of Condemnation
The diplomatic response to Huckabee's interview was swift, severe, and remarkably unified. This was not a case of isolated criticism; it was a coordinated rebuke from the highest levels of government and multilateral bodies across the Islamic world.
In an unprecedented show of unity, the foreign ministers of Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Indonesia, and Palestine—among others—issued a joint statement alongside the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the Arab League, and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) .
The joint statement expressed "profound concern" and a "categorical rejection of such dangerous and inflammatory remarks," declaring them a flagrant violation of international law and the UN Charter, and a "grave threat to the security and stability of the region" .
Key Reactions from the Region:
Saudi Arabia: The Saudi Foreign Ministry called the remarks "irresponsible," stating they constitute a violation of international law and diplomatic norms. They directly called on the US State Department to "clarify its position," highlighting the seriousness with which Riyadh viewed the matter .
Egypt: The Egyptian Foreign Ministry expressed its "astonishment," describing the comments as a "blatant violation" of international law. Cairo firmly reiterated that Israel holds "no sovereignty" over occupied Palestinian territory or any other Arab lands .
Jordan: Amman's response was equally forceful, with the Foreign Ministry describing Huckabee's statements as "absurd and provocative" and an assault on the sovereignty of regional states .
The Arab League: Secretary-General Ahmed Aboul Gheit condemned the claims as contrary to the most basic principles of diplomacy, warning that such rhetoric "inflames religious and national sentiments" at a critical juncture for peace efforts .
The OIC: The 57-nation body described the comments as "dangerous and irresponsible," rooted in a "false and rejected historical and ideological narrative" that violates state sovereignty and international law .
The diplomatic response to Huckabee's interview was swift, severe, and remarkably unified. This was not a case of isolated criticism; it was a coordinated rebuke from the highest levels of government and multilateral bodies across the Islamic world.
In an unprecedented show of unity, the foreign ministers of Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Indonesia, and Palestine—among others—issued a joint statement alongside the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the Arab League, and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) .
The joint statement expressed "profound concern" and a "categorical rejection of such dangerous and inflammatory remarks," declaring them a flagrant violation of international law and the UN Charter, and a "grave threat to the security and stability of the region" .
Key Reactions from the Region:
Saudi Arabia: The Saudi Foreign Ministry called the remarks "irresponsible," stating they constitute a violation of international law and diplomatic norms. They directly called on the US State Department to "clarify its position," highlighting the seriousness with which Riyadh viewed the matter .
Egypt: The Egyptian Foreign Ministry expressed its "astonishment," describing the comments as a "blatant violation" of international law. Cairo firmly reiterated that Israel holds "no sovereignty" over occupied Palestinian territory or any other Arab lands .
Jordan: Amman's response was equally forceful, with the Foreign Ministry describing Huckabee's statements as "absurd and provocative" and an assault on the sovereignty of regional states .
The Arab League: Secretary-General Ahmed Aboul Gheit condemned the claims as contrary to the most basic principles of diplomacy, warning that such rhetoric "inflames religious and national sentiments" at a critical juncture for peace efforts .
The OIC: The 57-nation body described the comments as "dangerous and irresponsible," rooted in a "false and rejected historical and ideological narrative" that violates state sovereignty and international law .
A Contradiction to Trump’s Peace Plan?
Perhaps the most politically damaging aspect of the affair is the perceived contradiction with the stated policies of the administration Huckabee represents. The joint statement from the Arab nations explicitly noted that Huckabee’s remarks were in conflict with "the vision put forward by US President Donald Trump," specifically the "Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict" .
The Arab leaders stressed that the official US plan was "grounded in promoting tolerance and peaceful coexistence," and that Huckabee's rhetoric "undermines these objectives, fuels tensions, and constitutes incitement rather than advancing peace" .
This has put the Trump administration in a difficult position. As international law expert Ahmer Bilal Soofi noted, the Ambassador’s statement has placed his sending state in a precarious spot. If the government endorses the statement, it incurs significant diplomatic costs. If it disavows it, it raises questions about the Ambassador's fitness for office under the Vienna Convention .
The Two-State Solution 'Stripped Away'
The controversy comes at a time when the foundational principle of Middle East peace—the two-state solution—is already under immense strain. UN Secretary-General António Guterres, speaking at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, issued a stark warning on the same day the diplomatic backlash was unfolding. He stated that human rights and international law are being blatantly violated and that "the two-state solution is being stripped away in broad daylight" .
For Palestinians and their supporters, Huckabee’s interview is proof positive of that erosion. The Palestinian Authority was quick to condemn the remarks, stating they contradict President Trump’s own rejection of West Bank annexation . The comments lend credence to the fear that the ultimate goal of Israel's most right-wing government in history, tacitly backed by influential voices in Washington, is not peaceful coexistence but expansion.
Perhaps the most politically damaging aspect of the affair is the perceived contradiction with the stated policies of the administration Huckabee represents. The joint statement from the Arab nations explicitly noted that Huckabee’s remarks were in conflict with "the vision put forward by US President Donald Trump," specifically the "Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict" .
The Arab leaders stressed that the official US plan was "grounded in promoting tolerance and peaceful coexistence," and that Huckabee's rhetoric "undermines these objectives, fuels tensions, and constitutes incitement rather than advancing peace" .
This has put the Trump administration in a difficult position. As international law expert Ahmer Bilal Soofi noted, the Ambassador’s statement has placed his sending state in a precarious spot. If the government endorses the statement, it incurs significant diplomatic costs. If it disavows it, it raises questions about the Ambassador's fitness for office under the Vienna Convention .
The Two-State Solution 'Stripped Away'
The controversy comes at a time when the foundational principle of Middle East peace—the two-state solution—is already under immense strain. UN Secretary-General António Guterres, speaking at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, issued a stark warning on the same day the diplomatic backlash was unfolding. He stated that human rights and international law are being blatantly violated and that "the two-state solution is being stripped away in broad daylight" .
For Palestinians and their supporters, Huckabee’s interview is proof positive of that erosion. The Palestinian Authority was quick to condemn the remarks, stating they contradict President Trump’s own rejection of West Bank annexation . The comments lend credence to the fear that the ultimate goal of Israel's most right-wing government in history, tacitly backed by influential voices in Washington, is not peaceful coexistence but expansion.
A Sideshow: The Carlson Detainment
In a bizarre twist that underscores the tension surrounding the visit, Tucker Carlson claimed that he and his staff were detained by Israeli officials at Ben Gurion Airport shortly after the interview .
Carlson alleged that officials confiscated their passports and hauled his executive producer into an interrogation room, demanding to know what was discussed with Ambassador Huckabee. Sources suggested the Israeli government had initially been reluctant to grant Carlson entry due to his frequent criticism of Israel's military actions in Gaza . The incident has only added fuel to the fire, with critics viewing it as an attempt to intimidate a journalist close to the President, while others see it as a reflection of the Israeli government's disdain for any criticism of its policies.
In a bizarre twist that underscores the tension surrounding the visit, Tucker Carlson claimed that he and his staff were detained by Israeli officials at Ben Gurion Airport shortly after the interview .
Carlson alleged that officials confiscated their passports and hauled his executive producer into an interrogation room, demanding to know what was discussed with Ambassador Huckabee. Sources suggested the Israeli government had initially been reluctant to grant Carlson entry due to his frequent criticism of Israel's military actions in Gaza . The incident has only added fuel to the fire, with critics viewing it as an attempt to intimidate a journalist close to the President, while others see it as a reflection of the Israeli government's disdain for any criticism of its policies.
Conclusion: A Reckless Endorsement or a Diplomatic Reality?
Ambassador Mike Huckabee has long been known for his uncompromising pro-Israel, evangelical Christian worldview. His appointment was seen by many as a signal to Israel's right-wing that they had a friend in Washington. However, translating theological beliefs into diplomatic discourse has proven to be a powder keg.
While the Ambassador may view his "Nile to Euphrates" comment as a theoretical discussion of biblical history, the nations of the Middle East have heard it as a modern-day threat. The unified and forceful response from 14 nations and three major multilateral blocs indicates that this was not a minor diplomatic hiccup, but a major breach of protocol that has eroded trust.
As the Board of Peace convenes to discuss the future of Gaza and the region, Huckabee's words hang heavy in the air. They have handed a megaphone to extremists on all sides who argue that peace is impossible, and they have left America's traditional Arab allies questioning whether Washington is still a guarantor of stability or a proponent of expansionist fantasies. For now, the ball is in the State Department's court to clarify whether the Ambassador was speaking for himself, or whether his vision of a "Greater Israel" is now a greater part of American policy.
Ambassador Mike Huckabee has long been known for his uncompromising pro-Israel, evangelical Christian worldview. His appointment was seen by many as a signal to Israel's right-wing that they had a friend in Washington. However, translating theological beliefs into diplomatic discourse has proven to be a powder keg.
While the Ambassador may view his "Nile to Euphrates" comment as a theoretical discussion of biblical history, the nations of the Middle East have heard it as a modern-day threat. The unified and forceful response from 14 nations and three major multilateral blocs indicates that this was not a minor diplomatic hiccup, but a major breach of protocol that has eroded trust.
As the Board of Peace convenes to discuss the future of Gaza and the region, Huckabee's words hang heavy in the air. They have handed a megaphone to extremists on all sides who argue that peace is impossible, and they have left America's traditional Arab allies questioning whether Washington is still a guarantor of stability or a proponent of expansionist fantasies. For now, the ball is in the State Department's court to clarify whether the Ambassador was speaking for himself, or whether his vision of a "Greater Israel" is now a greater part of American policy.
