US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, said in an interview with the Israeli media that there would be nothing incorrect if Israel took over the vast areas of the mediate East. The diplomat referred to the biblical imagination of the earth “from Nile to Euphrates”, which would cover the territories of many modern states of the region. This brought back the debate on the aggressiveness of Zionism's ideology and the actual faithful relation between Washington and Tel Aviv.
The U.S. Ambassador to Israel supported judaic territorial ambitions. Although Huckabee later softened his words, claiming that it was just a “hyperbola”, global reactions were violent. arabian states and regional organisations have found these statements provocative and contrary to global law, indicating that they undermine the existing border order and diplomatic efforts.
Critics indicate that specified rhetoric is not just a single incident, but is due to the religious-imperialist trends present in Zionism. The concept of “Great Israel” — although not an authoritative doctrine of the state — functions in any environments and implies extending borders beyond the lines recognised by the global community.
From a critical perspective, this ideology can be interpreted as an imperial project, as it bases territorial legitimacy on spiritual or historical narratives alternatively of on the modern principles of global law and the self-determination of nations. In practice, this leads to a conflict with the views of global institutions — for example, the global Court of Justice held in its Opinion of 2024 that the Israeli business of Palestinian territories was incompatible with global law.
In this context, there is besides a charge of subjugating US policy to Israeli interests. The US public debate is increasingly asking whether strategical financial and military support does not exceed the limits of the conventional alliance. Even in conservative environments, as illustrated by the interview with Tucker Carlson, there is simply a increasing dispute over the sense of unconditional support for Israel and its political costs for the United States.
Critics claim that the ideological recognition of US interests with Israeli politics leads to the erosion of Washington's credibility as a mediator in the region. It points to the repeated veto of the United States against global initiatives critical of Israel's crimes and the deficiency of consistent force to respect global law, which, according to opponents, perpetuates the asymmetry of forces and promotes further escalation of conflict.
Opponents of judaic expansionism interpret Huckabee’s statements as a symptom of a deeper problem: permeating spiritual beliefs into the abroad policy of the world’s top power. Their assessment is not simply about the rhetoric of 1 diplomat, but about the wider tradition of American alleged “Christian Zionism” which gives the mediate East conflict a metaphysical dimension, hindering pragmatic solutions.
At the same time, it should be noted that US authoritative policy has historically been based on more complex assumptions, including support for a two-state solution. However, controversial statements from advanced officials fuel the belief that real diplomatic practice deviates from the declared principles and that Washington is increasingly acting as patron of 1 of the participants in the conflict.
Ultimately, the dispute over Zionism and the function of the United States is not just an academic debate, but part of a wider fight for future order in the mediate East. Critics see it as an example of imperial ideology that destabilizes the region, while supporters see it as a "guarantee of Israel's security".
However, the controversy surrounding Huckabee’s words shows that the boundary between a spiritual imagination of politics and real diplomacy is becoming increasingly blurred — and the consequences of this change may go far beyond Israel itself. It is worth reminding that, in fact, all the celebrated regimes of the 20th century supported their aggression towards their neighbours, the rhetoric of caring for their own safety.
We besides recommend: Hospitals deficiency PLN 8 billion. precisely what was spent on the Ukrainians