An interview between American commentator Tucker Carlson and US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee has led to several controversies, with a number of countries across the Middle East condemning the US Ambassador’s remarks.
The interview has also led to a debate in some sectors about how views on Israel and the Middle East are shaping US policy, and also how religious views have shaped policy in the region.
Starting with the positive, two people sat down in an amicable format and discussed controversial topics in a mostly polite manner. There was no shouting or extremism. This was a respectable interview, and it shows that people with very different viewpoints can speak about them in a calm manner.
This is in contrast to how some shows prefer to have interviews where they gather several guests and have them shout at each other.
Shouting may be good for ratings, but none of the listeners learn anything.
For instance, during the Israel-Hamas War, did anyone really learn anything from the shows that included shouting and talking points, such as: “Israel is doing genocide!”
“No, it isn’t, you’re an antisemite!” Did anyone learn anything? The public was mostly made less educated.
Did the Carlson-Huckabee interview educate us? It certainly provided a few insights into key discussions about the recent war, Israel, and US policy.
These insights included a discussion about civilian casualties in Gaza.
Carlson pressed the Ambassador on the number of casualties in Gaza, as well as the number of children killed. What this reveals is the continuing problem of relying solely on the data of the Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza. While some people reject the numbers of that ministry, they refuse to provide any alternative numbers.
Even today, with the IDF running half of Gaza and a new US-backed peace plan, there is no alternative health ministry. When people in Gaza are killed, there is no one to document it who is considered a reliable independent source. This appears unconscionable. How can two million people be denied the right to have basic documentation about their lives?
Another revealing part of the Carlson-Huckabee interview focused on the question of Jewish rights to Israel and issues relating to Christian Zionism.
This is the part of the interview that led to countries in the region condemning the US Ambassador’s remarks.
Ostensibly, the question relates to an interpretation of the Biblical Land of Israel stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates. The way the Ambassador’s comments were related to the region can be seen in the article by Turkey’s Anadolu.
“US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee argued that Israel has a biblical right to the land stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates rivers, saying, ‘It would be fine if they (Israel) took it all,’ on a podcast released Friday.” The question this raises is whether Biblical interpretations should guide police regarding modern-day Israel.
Before discussing the issue of the Bible and Zionism and what it means for modern politics, it’s worth looking now at the negatives that came out of the interview.
Around a dozen countries say that they “affirm their countries’ categorical rejection of such dangerous and inflammatory remarks, which constitute a flagrant violation of the principles of international law and the Charter of the United Nations, and pose a grave threat to the security and stability of the region.”
This is from a joint statement by “the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of the United Arab Emirates, the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Republic of Indonesia, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Republic of Turkey, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the State of Qatar, the State of Kuwait, the Sultanate of Oman, the Kingdom of Bahrain, the Lebanese Republic, the Syrian Arab Republic, and the State of Palestine, and the secretariats of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the League of Arab States (LAS), and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)” which wrote to “express their strong condemnation and profound concern regarding the statements made by the United States Ambassador to Israel, in which he indicated that it would be acceptable for Israel to exercise control over territories belonging to Arab states, including the occupied West Bank.”
This is not a small number of countries. Many of them are US allies and partners. Several of them have peace with Israel. Several of them are also key to the current US-Iran talks, and they host US military bases. What these countries are saying is they are concerned by the comments by the US Ambassador in the interview, and they claim the comments contradict the policies of the Trump administration.
Why a discussion on Biblical Zionism matters
Now, let’s consider why the discussion of the Bible and Zionism matters. Support for Zionism and Israel among some Christians has sometimes been rooted in understandings of the Old Testament. This helped lead to support for the Balfour Declaration in 1917.
Israel’s Foreign Ministry notes, regarding the declaration, “Moreover, far from acting alone, Great Britain was actually part of a major international consensus supporting Zionism, the aspiration of the Jewish people to restore their independence and sovereignty in the Land of Israel. Prior to issuing the declaration, Great Britain coordinated with its allies.”
IT SHOULD be recalled that the declaration’s actual language is rooted in more than just generalizations about returning Jews to the Land of Israel.
“His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
What is clear from the policies that underpinned support for Zionism and the underpinnings of modern Israel is that it is not just a Biblical discussion; it is rooted in rights as well.
What the Carlson-Huckabee interview appears to have missed is a wider discussion of how this debate about the Bible relates to modern-day policy. Israel is not the only country in the region whose nationalist history is tied up in ideas of a “greater” nationalism. Greek and Turkish nationalism also have wider claims than the modern-day states.
Arab nationalism once envisioned one large Arab state in the region. Turkey speaks of the Mediterranean as the “Blue Homeland.” Kurds would like to have a Kurdistan. Talk about “greater Israel” therefore does not exist in a vacuum. However, in a region with overlapping claims, it clearly provokes strong reactions.
Understanding the interplay between modern borders and policy and the Biblical discussion of the roots of Zionism clearly is a sensitive discussion and should be approached with that sensitivity.
There are lessons from the Carlson-Huckabee interview, and they should be discussed. Carlson has been critiqued over the last several years for his apparent shift in his views of Israel. This shift among some right-leaning US commentators is not only related to Carlson.
The Gaza war led to a deep discussion in American right-leaning and Christian circles about this, including among supporters of Israel.
Some have accused this discussion of becoming influenced by antisemitism. There is also a wider discussion about how Evangelicals relate to Israel and whether there are shifting views among younger Evangelicals on Israel, in part due to the Gaza war and other trends.
The Carlson-Huckabee interview is a window into this discussion, even if some would prefer not to look out that window. It is also a window that many countries in the region and others are looking through.