Decoding Huckabee's contradictory statements
Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, is a self-professed Christian Zionist who unconditionally supports the state of Israel. That is a large part of why he was considered by President Donald Trump as a candidate to be US envoy to Israel.
But for a short while this month, it seemed Huckabee had momentarily forgotten his hard-line ideological positions — including his refusal to use the term 'West Bank' and his general denial of Palestinian nationalism. He has consistently referred to the Occupied Territories using the biblical term 'Judea and Samaria.'
Yet when an American citizen was killed by violent Jewish settlers and a Palestinian Christian village came under settler arson attacks, Huckabee suddenly seemed to remember that he represents the US in Israel, not the other way round. His visit to the village of Taybeh prompted a surprisingly strong statement, in which he labeled the settler attacks as acts of 'terrorism.'
Speaking to the mayor and a group of leading citizens — including Palestinian American businessmen Daoud and Nadim Khoury, founders of the Taybeh Brewery — Huckabee said that, as an American envoy, he represents all Americans. After learning that settlers illegally occupy 7,000 dunams of privately owned village land and regularly attack Taybeh, he called for a strong response to the settler violence. He also condemned attacks on houses of worship and urged that the settler criminals be 'aggressively investigated … not just reprimanded, that's not enough.'
Huckabee followed his July 19 visit to Taybeh with an even more politically significant set of meetings. He traveled to Ramallah and met with Palestinian Vice President Hussein Al-Sheikh at the presidential headquarters. He also met with Prime Minister Mohammed Mustafa. In addition, he met with church leaders in Jerusalem and is reportedly planning to meet with several leading businesspeople, including Palestinian Americans.
All of this might suggest a political change of heart. But not so fast.
In Taybeh, Huckabee emphasized that his role as ambassador is to ensure the well-being of all Americans living in Israel. His Palestinian hosts quickly reminded him that the West Bank is not part of Israel — despite efforts by Israeli extremists to annex it, either directly or indirectly.
Moreover, Huckabee's visit to Ramallah, which he preferred not to publicize (and which the US Embassy did not officially announce), produced no breakthroughs — no promises to follow up, no political horizon for Palestinians and no initiatives to revive the near-bankrupt Palestinian Authority. The PA's financial crisis is due in large part to the illegal actions of Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who is withholding nearly $2 billion in Palestinian tax and customs revenues.
Once back in Israel, Huckabee reverted to his ideological roots. Responding to French President Emmanuel Macron's announcement that Paris would recognize Palestine during this year's UN General Assembly session, Huckabee showed his true colors. The Christian Zionist ideologue called the French position 'incredibly inappropriate.'
Mike Huckabee's visit to Taybeh prompted a surprisingly strong statement, in which he labeled the settler attacks as acts of 'terrorism'.
Daoud Kuttab
'If France is really so determined to see a Palestinian state, I've got a suggestion for them: carve out a piece of the French Riviera and create a Palestinian state. They're welcome to do that,' Huckabee said. 'But they're not welcome to impose that kind of pressure on a sovereign nation.' He concluded that the US would not participate in 'such a ruse.'
It is not unusual for politicians to change their tone depending on their audience. But to suggest, even in jest, Palestinian ethnic cleansing — asking France to relocate an entire people — simply because a permanent member of the UN Security Council decided to end a blatant double standard is appalling.
The US, which was the first country to recognize Israel in May 1948, continues to repeat its support for a two-state solution. But now, with France and Saudi Arabia this week co-chairing a meeting aimed at advancing that very goal, Washington has pulled back — while its envoy to Israel floats ideas that amount to war crimes.
Palestinians and Israelis want to live in peace. If Huckabee, a former pastor, wants to be true to his Christian faith or the values of his democratic country, he has no choice but to support the right of Palestinians to live in their own independent state next to Israel. Support for any other plan is support for apartheid and a grave violation of international law.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
Saudi Arabia leads the way in push for two-state solution
Anyone following developments in the Middle East will have noticed a clear surge in Saudi Arabia's engagement with the Palestinian cause since Oct. 7, 2023. This momentum goes beyond a political or humanitarian position; it reflects a strategic vision. The Kingdom has reinforced this commitment by sponsoring international conferences, building broad alliances with partner nations, and providing critical funding for food and medical supplies to Palestinians in both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Saudi efforts have evolved steadily from vocal advocacy to leading a political process aimed at establishing an independent Palestinian state, strengthened by a strong partnership with European nations. The international conference on the two-state solution, held in July at the UN headquarters in New York, and co-chaired by Saudi Arabia and France, brought together representatives from more than 125 countries. The summit aimed to initiate a clear political process to end the war in Gaza and advocate for the recognition of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, in line with UN resolutions. The conference adopted a declaration presenting a comprehensive framework with clear, time-bound measures. These included an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, the transfer of administrative control to the Palestinian Authority, and the deployment of a temporary international mission under UN supervision to help stabilize the situation. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan highlighted that 'these outcomes offer a comprehensive set of proposals encompassing political, humanitarian, security, economic, legal, and strategic dimensions,' forming 'a practical and actionable framework for implementing the two-state solution and securing lasting peace and security for all.' He called on 'all UN member states to endorse the final declaration before the conclusion of the upcoming General Assembly session in September.' French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot urged all nations to view the conference as a critical turning point in advancing the two-state solution and ending the war in Gaza. He emphasized the urgent need to cease attacks on civilians and to pursue a path toward lasting and sustainable peace. The international conference on the two-state solution was a critical turning point. Hassan Al-Mustafa Saudi Arabia's active diplomacy has firmly underscored that normalization with Tel Aviv will not take place unless Israel ends its occupation of Palestinian territories and commits to a serious, credible peace process. This unequivocal position was clearly stated by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman before the Saudi Shoura Council in September 2024, when he declared: 'The Kingdom will not waver in its tireless efforts to establish an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, and we affirm that the Kingdom will not enter into diplomatic relations with Israel without that.' The international conference achieved several key strategic objectives, most notably reviving global momentum for the two-state solution following years of diminished focus and the war in Gaza since October 2023; reaffirming the legitimacy and authority of the Palestinian Authority; and establishing a clear link between normalization and a concrete political framework. In essence, peace and normalization are now firmly tied to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, laying the foundation for lasting peace in the Middle East. Another major political achievement — long a source of concern for Israel and a point of unease for the US administration — has been the momentum gained in pushing key European countries toward recognizing the state of Palestine. France is set to lead this initiative in September, along with other nations, such as Ireland, Portugal, and the UK. The conference also firmly linked the peace process to halting settlement expansion, rejecting the illegal annexation of Palestinian land, and ending violence against Palestinian civilians. This stance was underscored by the explicit use of the term 'terrorism' to describe the violent attacks carried out by extremist settlers against unarmed Palestinians and their property. This summit was not a reiteration of past initiatives, but rather a unified political declaration to redefine the negotiating framework and establish a new political and legal balance of power. It stood in direct opposition to Israel's policies, which have dismantled previous regional dynamics through the use of force, starvation, and forced displacement. For the first time in decades, the two-state solution has been advanced outside the framework of traditional American dominance, under the joint sponsorship of Saudi Arabia and France. This shift highlights the growing diplomatic influence of the Middle East, which has succeeded in rallying influential European nations and establishing lasting strategic partnerships. The underlying message is unmistakable: Israel can no longer rely exclusively on US protection to sideline Palestinian demands. Negotiations have shifted. They are no longer defined by a stark imbalance between a militarily dominant power and a counterpart relying solely on the strength of international law and moral legitimacy. France's decision to recognize a Palestinian state in September is not a mere symbolic gesture, but a significant shift with serious implications, which explains Israel's concern. Paris is breaking away from the traditionally passive or hesitant European stance, most notably that of Germany, and is instead embracing a more assertive and proactive diplomatic approach. France is working to solidify its role as a key interlocutor, an alternative actor, and a 'parallel mediator' to the US. While an imbalance of power and influence remains — and Washington continues to play a central role in Middle Eastern affairs — this shift in French diplomacy reinforces the emergence of a multipolar approach to conflict resolution. It also places growing pressure on Israel to acknowledge that its occupation is no longer seen as legitimate or acceptable in the eyes of the Western world, especially as its image among broad segments of the European public is now deeply tarnished by associations with violence and bloodshed. What lies ahead? Politically, pressure on Israel is set to intensify, especially if France proceeds with its recognition of the state of Palestine and is followed by other countries, notably the UK. Diplomatically, we can expect active Saudi engagement in international forums to support new resolutions on Palestine, along with renewed efforts in Washington to convince President Donald Trump's administration that a credible peace process serves the interests of the US, the Middle East, and even Israel. Without such engagement, the region risks descending further into chaos and hostility, fostering generations without hope. • Hassan Al-Mustafa is a Saudi writer and researcher interested in Islamic movements, the development of religious discourse and the relationship between the Gulf Cooperation Council states and Iran. X: @Halmustafa
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
Saudi crown prince receives Kuwaiti PM at NEOM Palace
RIYADH: Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman received Kuwaiti Prime Minister Sheikh Ahmad Abdullah Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah at NEOM Palace on Monday. The two officials reviewed the historic relations between their countries, aspects of bilateral cooperation, and ways to enhance and develop it in various fields. They also exchanged views on a number of topics of common interest, Saudi Press Agency reported.
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
Lebanese state and Hezbollah face their most difficult hour
Can Lebanon become a normal state again, one that makes decisions through state institutions and that respects its commitments in line with international laws? Can Hezbollah acknowledge that the 'Axis of Resistance' is no more, and that it has no choice but to return to Lebanon and close the chapter of the 'regional player?' Can the party agree to a lesser role for Lebanon if Iran agrees to a lesser role in the region in recognition of the new balance of power? It does not take a genius to recognize that the situation in Lebanon has not changed, even though the features of this new reality have yet to be fully formed. Joseph Aoun was sworn in as president with Arab and international backing and under the slogan of reclaiming the state with all of its institutions. Nawaf Salam was named prime minister with the same goals. However, it was evident that Lebanon would not enjoy regional and international support for its reconstruction unless the decisions that are carried out in the south are restored to the state alone. I recalled what an Arab politician once told me. He said the Axis of Resistance was based on three pillars: The first was Gen. Qassem Soleimani, with his unique position in the Iranian supreme leader's circle and role in exporting the revolution that is enshrined in the Iranian constitution. The second was Hassan Nasrallah, who was Soleimani's partner in building the axis in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon. The third was Syria, which acted as the supply route for arms, 'advisers,' and funds from Tehran to Beirut passing through Iraq. What is left of Hezbollah's regional role now that Soleimani and Nasrallah are dead, and the Syrian 'bridge' has been severed with the ousting of former leader Bashar Assad? The politician said Hezbollah is undoubtedly going through the most difficult phase since its establishment in the wake of the Israeli invasion of Beirut in 1982. Nasrallah and Soleimani are no more, and the Syrian Arab Republic President Ahmed Al-Sharaa has not forgotten what the pair did to keep Assad's regime alive. Tehran has suffered from Israeli jets breaching its skies. There is no doubt that Hezbollah fought fiercely, but there can be no denying Israel's superiority and how it succeeded in eliminating the pillars of the axis. This reality prompted Aoun to dare to declare the facts as they are after he realized that Lebanon was at risk of more Israeli violations and that it would not get out from under the rubble without paying a price — Hezbollah and its weapons. So, he openly declared what his predecessors had avoided saying explicitly: The possession of weapons should be restricted to the army and Hezbollah must disarm. Hezbollah is obviously having a hard time accepting this demand, which is effectively calling on it to abandon its regional exploits and become a local party that does not monopolize the decision of war and peace and has no military arsenal. In other words, it no longer has the right to name presidents and veto any Lebanese decisions that do not align with its regional vision. In early summer 2004, I held a meeting with Assad, with discussions focusing on the US invasion of Iraq and its impact on the region. I had to ask about Lebanon, where Syrian troops were deployed throughout its territories and where Syria held sway over its decisions. The country was then ruled by President Emile Lahoud. Assad said that his term would end in the fall. I asked him about the rumors that the term would be extended, to which he replied: 'Wasn't the extension of Elias Hrawi's term costly?' I agreed, and Assad added: 'Don't you think Lahoud's extension will be even more costly?' And I had to agree. Assad revealed that he had a list of possible presidential candidates, including Jean Obeid, whom he said was skilled at politics, but would be no match for Rafik Hariri. Asked who his preferred candidate was, he tried to imply that the Lebanese themselves would decide in the end. I told him that I was not some ignorant stranger and that I knew how things worked in Lebanon. At my insistence, Assad told me he favored Suleiman Frangieh, whom he praised. Will Hezbollah assume the responsibility for the isolation that will befall Lebanon if it insists on hanging on to its arsenal? Ghassan Charbel In the end, Lahoud's term was extended and Frangieh was ruled out as a candidate, perhaps because he was a family friend of the Assads. I returned to Syria that fall and asked Assad what prompted the extension, to which he replied that a 'friend' advised him that Frangieh needed to forge more foreign relations, especially in the region. Frangieh would later reveal to me that the 'friend' was none other than Nasrallah, who urged Assad to extend Lahoud's term, a decision that would be costly for Syria after Hariri's assassination. Hezbollah made presidents and governments in Lebanon. It kept the presidential palace vacant for two-and-half years so that it would be able to elect Michel Aoun as president, putting him at odds with Parliamentary Speaker Nabih Berri from day one of his term. Can a party that used to change Assad's decisions and that sent advisers to Yemen and Iraq return to the Lebanese map without its rockets? Will the party assume the responsibility for the isolation that will befall Lebanon if it insists on hanging on to its arsenal or if it sparks a new Israeli war on Lebanon? The party has lost its strong leader, its influence in Syria, and its ability to fight Israel, so what role does its arsenal have left to play? Can it take the decision to lay down its arms?
