Huckabee’s Biblical Rhetoric Is Undermining the Abraham Accords

by Charbel Antoun

When U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee told Tucker Carlson on Feb. 20 that it would be “fine if [Israel] took it all” — referring to biblical borders stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates — he did not just spark outrage. He destabilized the diplomatic architecture the United States has spent years trying to build.

He later called the remark “hyperbolic.” But the damage was done. And Washington’s silence is turning a personal comment into a perceived policy shift.

A Regional Firestorm — And No U.S. Clarification

Arab states responded within hours: Saudi Arabia condemned the “extremist rhetoric” as destabilizing. While Egypt denounced it as a violation of international law. And Jordan called it “irresponsible, escalatory and absurd.” The Palestinian Foreign Ministry said it was an “explicit call” to violate sovereignty. And the Arab League and OICaccused Huckabee of breaching diplomatic norms.

But the backlash did not stop there. A broader and even more consequential condemnation soon followed. The Foreign Ministries of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Indonesia, Pakistan, Türkiye, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain, Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine — together with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the League of Arab States (LAS), and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) — issued a joint statement expressing “strong condemnation and profound concern” over Huckabee’s remarks. They warned that suggesting it would be acceptable for Israel to control territories belonging to sovereign Arab states — including the occupied West Bank — represents a direct challenge to international law and regional stability. This was not routine diplomatic criticism; it was a unified message from nearly the entire Arab and Islamic world that Washington’s silence is untenable.

This was not fringing outrage. It was a coordinated diplomatic revolt — including from countries central to the Abraham Accords.

Why This Is not a Gaffe, It is a Policy Crisis

Huckabee is not a commentator. He is the U.S. ambassador, appointed by president Trump. In the Middle East, ambassadors’ words are treated as extensions of state policy unless Washington explicitly says otherwise.

The silence from the White House and State Department creates the impression that the United States is endorsing a religiously framed territorial claim — something that contradicts decades of bipartisan U.S. policy.

This perception undermines: the Accords’ pragmatic foundation, The U.S. credibility as a mediator, and regional confidence in American consistency

The Abraham Accords Are Now at Risk

The Accords were built on practical cooperation, trade, technology, and shared security concerns. They were never about biblical entitlement or territorial maximalism. Huckabee’s comments introduce ideology into a framework designed to avoid it.

Why would Saudi Arabia proceed with normalization if Washington appears to validate claims that touch its own territory?

Silence as Strategy, Or Silence as Surrender?

A single sentence from the State Department — “These are personal views, not U.S. policy” — would have contained the fallout. Instead, Washington has chosen silence (till now). That silence:

In a region already shaken by wars, ambiguity is not a strategy. It is instability.

America’s Influence Is Eroding

The Middle East does not need biblical maximalism or ambassadorial improvisation. It needs clarity, consistency, and diplomacy.

If Washington continues to stay mute, it risks watching the Accords unravel, allies drift, and adversaries fill the vacuum.

Silence is not neutrality. Silence is policy. And right now, that silence is costing the United States the credibility it spent decades building.