The Religious Zionist Huckabee and the Ideologization of American Diplomacy

Recent statements made by a number of American ambassadors in Israel and Europe raise a clear issue regarding the limits of diplomatic roles and respect for the sovereignty of host countries, especially when it comes to ambassadors directly connected to U.S. President Donald Trump, who represent specific political ideologies more than they do as professional diplomatic experts.

In the Arab world, the comments made by U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, have sparked widespread controversy following his remarks about Greater Israel and its “existential right” to exist, along with clear implications regarding its right to dominate or control Arab lands. Huckabee, the first ambassador appointed by Trump to Israel, represents the influential right-wing, Zionist, and messianic Jewish figure in American elections and serves as a blatant example of the politicization of diplomatic appointments, where ideological and political loyalty to the president becomes more important than professional experience.

Huckabee's remarks were not only interpreted as a personal opinion, but also as an overstep of diplomatic norms, transforming the position into an ideological platform, disregarding U.S. Arab interests and regional balance. These statements revealed a dangerous aspect of U.S.-Israeli relations, as they adopted an explicit expansionist discourse aligning with a right-wing Zionist-messianic ideology, ignoring the sovereignty of Arab states and the rights of Arab peoples, and supporting displacement, ethnic cleansing, settlement, annexation, and the imposition of sovereignty over the occupied West Bank.

In Paris, statements made by the U.S. Embassy concerning France’s handling of “anti-Semitism” issues led to an official protest, particularly following what was attributed to Charles Kushner, the U.S. ambassador in Paris and father of Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and advisor. French authorities considered these statements a direct interference in internal affairs, which prompted them to summon the ambassador. The same scenario occurred in Belgium, where statements made by the U.S. ambassador regarding domestic policies elicited an official protest and a summons of the ambassador, reflecting the sensitivity of these European countries to the concept of sovereignty and respect for international norms.

The paradox lies in the fact that Arab responses, including the position of the Palestinian Authority, have not gone beyond formal condemnations or partial recalls of ambassadors, without taking more severe stances that could impact American interests or limit an explicit Zionist ideological discourse. This position reflects a clear weakness or hesitation in confronting an ideological discourse that aligns with the vision of the right-wing Israeli government, which supports displacement, ethnic cleansing, settlement, annexation, and the imposition of sovereignty over Palestinian lands. The Palestinian Authority's position specifically was feeble and did not reflect the ability to protect Palestinian rights and interests or press the U.S. administration to hold the ambassador accountable.

The issue is not the personal freedom of expression of the ambassador, but the limits of the diplomatic position itself. An ambassador is not a political or ideological activist but a representative of the state who is supposed to maintain a balance between his country's interests and respect for the sovereignty of the host country. When the position becomes a platform for promoting a religious-political discourse that justifies expansion or adopts expansionist narratives, it places his country in a position of alignment instead of mediation, undermining the image of diplomacy as a balancing tool.

The most dangerous aspect is the lack of accountability for this discourse from the American administration and the continued adoption of similar policies, reflecting what could be termed American diplomatic ideologies, where internal electoral rhetoric is mixed with external diplomacy, and loyalty to the president becomes a higher standard than professional norms and diplomatic experience.

The difference between European and Arab reactions, including limited Arab positions, highlights the limits of what is permissible for American ambassadors in representing their country's interests without overstepping international norms, and reveals a clear double standard in dealing with strategic allies versus other countries in respecting national sovereignty, as well as highlighting the fragility of the Arab position in the face of a clear expansionist Zionist-American discourse.