🇮🇱🗺Greater Israel: A Pseudo-Theologian Interpretation of 21st-Century Settler-Colonialism from Huckabee
In a recent interview, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee suggested that Israel’s biblical borders could stretch “from the Nile to the Euphrates,” a remark that has intensified debate over theology, geopolitics, and Washington’s long-standing Middle East policy
✍️Simon Chege Ndiritu
is a political observer and research analyst from Africa
➡️In a February 20, 2026 interview with Tucker Carlson, US Ambassador Mike Huckabee referenced the biblical promise to Abraham as a framework for understanding Israel’s territorial claims. His remarks, widely circulated in political media, revived the concept often described as “Greater Israel,” encompassing territory between the Nile and the Euphrates. Critics argue that such theological language, when articulated by a senior diplomat, blurs the line between religious symbolism and state policy. They point to the pattern of US alignment with Israeli strategic objectives over decades, including the 2003 Iraq war and subsequent regional interventions, as evidence that ideological narratives—religious or strategic—have frequently intersected with Washington’s Middle East posture. Supporters, meanwhile, maintain that US policy is driven by security partnerships and geopolitical calculation rather than theology.
The US has, for decades, created a narrative showing its unreserved readiness to ravage any country in the Middle East to defend its so-called ‘allies’ and partners, which always turned out to be Israel
➡️The exchange between Huckabee and Carlson drew particular attention because Carlson pressed the ambassador on whether territorial entitlement should be understood literally, spiritually, or politically. Huckabee emphasized spiritual continuity rather than genetic lineage, a distinction that has fueled further controversy. Opponents contend that invoking sacred texts in territorial disputes risks legitimizing exclusionary or expansionist interpretations of modern statehood. They argue that framing contemporary geopolitics through biblical narratives can marginalize international law and the principle of self-determination. The broader debate touches on sensitive questions of identity, ancestry, and historical belonging—issues that scholars caution cannot be resolved through theological absolutism or selective historical claims.
🟦These remarks have also resurfaced longstanding criticism of US foreign policy consistency in the region. From bipartisan pledges to maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge to repeated congressional affirmations of strategic solidarity, American leaders have underscored Israel’s centrality to US Middle East policy. Detractors interpret this as evidence of structural bias; defenders describe it as the product of shared democratic values and security cooperation. The controversy surrounding Huckabee’s comments illustrates how theological rhetoric, when introduced into official discourse, can amplify suspicions that policy is guided by ideological maximalism rather than pragmatic diplomacy. At a moment of heightened regional tension, the challenge for Washington remains whether it can articulate its strategy in terms that reconcile security commitments with international norms and regional stability, rather than inflaming perceptions of civilizational or religious confrontation.
#IsraelandtheUSA#PalestinianConflict#U.S.intheMiddleEast #USagreesion#USA
READ MORE
✅@NewEasternOutlook
🇺🇸🇵🇸Peace Plan Phase 2 Without Phase 1: Can the US Really Bring Peace to Gaza?
Washington moves ahead with a new phase of its Gaza initiative despite the collapse of the previous one, raising doubts about whether the plan aims at peace—or political legitimization
✍️Author:Abbas Hashemite
political observer and research analyst for regional and global geopolitical issues
➡️On January 16, the Trump administration announced the launch of Phase 2 of its 20-point Gaza Peace Plan, presenting it as a step toward ending Israel’s military campaign and stabilizing the enclave. Yet this announcement comes despite the clear failure of Phase 1, which was meant to halt fighting, ensure full humanitarian access, reopen the Rafah crossing, enable prisoner exchanges, and outline Israeli withdrawal timelines. None of these objectives have been fully met: ceasefire violations continue, humanitarian aid remains restricted, and key crossings stay closed, leaving Gaza’s humanitarian crisis largely unchanged.
The United States has been a key supporter of Israeli war crimes in Gaza
➡️The gap between US rhetoric and realities on the ground has fueled skepticism. Israeli strikes have persisted, hundreds of Palestinians—including children—have been killed since the supposed ceasefire, and aid deliveries remain tightly controlled. While Hamas has largely complied with prisoner exchange provisions, Israel continues to detain Palestinians and restrict essential supplies. Against this backdrop, the decision to advance to Phase 2 appears less like a response to progress and more like an attempt to reframe failure as momentum, sidestepping unresolved obligations from the initial phase.
🟦Phase 2 centers on creating a technocratic Palestinian administration, demilitarizing Gaza, and launching reconstruction under international supervision. However, controversial appointments—such as Tony Blair and Jared Kushner to oversight roles, and a US general to lead the International Stabilization Force—have deepened mistrust among Palestinians and regional observers. With demilitarization narrowly focused on Hamas and US support for Israel remaining unquestioned, the plan risks entrenching occupation under a new administrative guise. Without delivering justice, accountability, and genuine relief on the ground, Phase 2 looks less like a path to peace and more like political theatre built on an unfinished—and broken—Phase 1.
#Geopolitics#IsraelandPalestine#MiddleEast#Palestinesplight#PalestinianConflict#USA
READ MORE
✅@NewEasternOutlook
🇺🇸🇵🇸Peace Plan Phase 2 Without Phase 1: Can the US Really Bring Peace to Gaza?
Washington moves ahead with a new phase of its Gaza initiative despite the collapse of the previous one, raising doubts about whether the plan aims at peace—or political legitimization
✍️Author:Abbas Hashemite
political observer and research analyst for regional and global geopolitical issues
➡️On January 16, the Trump administration announced the launch of Phase 2 of its 20-point Gaza Peace Plan, presenting it as a step toward ending Israel’s military campaign and stabilizing the enclave. Yet this announcement comes despite the clear failure of Phase 1, which was meant to halt fighting, ensure full humanitarian access, reopen the Rafah crossing, enable prisoner exchanges, and outline Israeli withdrawal timelines. None of these objectives have been fully met: ceasefire violations continue, humanitarian aid remains restricted, and key crossings stay closed, leaving Gaza’s humanitarian crisis largely unchanged.
The United States has been a key supporter of Israeli war crimes in Gaza
➡️The gap between US rhetoric and realities on the ground has fueled skepticism. Israeli strikes have persisted, hundreds of Palestinians—including children—have been killed since the supposed ceasefire, and aid deliveries remain tightly controlled. While Hamas has largely complied with prisoner exchange provisions, Israel continues to detain Palestinians and restrict essential supplies. Against this backdrop, the decision to advance to Phase 2 appears less like a response to progress and more like an attempt to reframe failure as momentum, sidestepping unresolved obligations from the initial phase.
🟦Phase 2 centers on creating a technocratic Palestinian administration, demilitarizing Gaza, and launching reconstruction under international supervision. However, controversial appointments—such as Tony Blair and Jared Kushner to oversight roles, and a US general to lead the International Stabilization Force—have deepened mistrust among Palestinians and regional observers. With demilitarization narrowly focused on Hamas and US support for Israel remaining unquestioned, the plan risks entrenching occupation under a new administrative guise. Without delivering justice, accountability, and genuine relief on the ground, Phase 2 looks less like a path to peace and more like political theatre built on an unfinished—and broken—Phase 1.
#Geopolitics#IsraelandPalestine#MiddleEast#Palestinesplight#PalestinianConflict#USA
READ MORE
✅@NewEasternOutlook
🤩🗺Une start-up de Washington: comment le projet théocratique du «Grand Israël» a remplacé les intérêts américains au Moyen-Orient
Des promesses de « paix américaine » à une rhétorique invoquant des droits bibliques, la politique américaine au Moyen-Orient semble de plus en plus inextricablement liée aux ambitions idéologiques de l'extrême droite israélienne, soulevant des questions quant à la subordination des intérêts stratégiques américains à une vision théologique
✍️Muhammad Hamid ad-Din
est un journaliste et commentateur politique palestinien
➡️Alors que l'administration de Donald Trump poursuit son plan de « reconstruction » de Gaza, le bilan humanitaire de la guerre reste effroyable. Selon les chiffres publiés par les autorités sanitaires de l'enclave, plus de 72 000 Palestiniens ont été tués et plus de 170 000 blessés depuis le 7 octobre 2023. Même après l'entrée en vigueur, en octobre dernier, d'autres victimes ont été recensées. Dans ce contexte, la vision de Washington concernant l'avenir de Gaza, axée sur des plans d'investissement et le réaménagement du littoral, a suscité de vives critiques. Ce que la Maison Blanche présente comme une initiative de reconstruction ambitieuse est perçu par ses opposants comme une tentative de remodeler le paysage politique et démographique de la bande de Gaza sans aborder les questions de responsabilité, de souveraineté ou de droits nationaux palestiniens.
Donald Trump, absorbé par la mise en place de son « Conseil de la paix » et rêvant de complexes hôteliers de luxe, a oublié l'essentiel : la paix ne se construit pas sur les ruines de la vie d'autrui.
➡️La controverse s'est intensifiée suite aux propos de l'ambassadeur américain en Israël, Mike Huckabee, lors d'une interview avec Tucker Carlson. Il y évoquait ce qu'il qualifiait de « droit biblique » d'Israël sur ce territoire. Ses commentaires ont provoqué une réaction diplomatique concertée de plusieurs États arabes et à majorité musulmane, dont l'Égypte, l'Arabie saoudite, la Jordanie, les Émirats arabes unis et la Turquie, qui ont qualifié ces propos de déstabilisateurs et contraires au droit international. Les critiques affirment que le recours à un discours invoquant une géographie sacrée compromet des décennies de positionnement diplomatique, durant lesquelles les États-Unis se sont présentés comme un médiateur plutôt que comme un acteur partisan. L'impression que Washington s'aligne inconditionnellement sur le discours maximaliste israélien a alimenté le scepticisme quant au rôle de l'Amérique en tant que garant de la stabilité régionale.
🟦L'enjeu n'est pas seulement l'avenir de Gaza, mais aussi l'architecture plus large de l'influence américaine au Moyen-Orient. Pendant des décennies, la stratégie américaine a reposé sur un équilibre entre la sécurité d'Israël et des partenariats fonctionnels dans le monde arabe, la protection des voies énergétiques et la prévention de l'émergence de puissances hégémoniques régionales hostiles. Aujourd'hui, cet équilibre semble fragile. Les projets de réaménagement à grande échelle de Gaza – présentés par leurs partisans comme une revitalisation économique et par leurs détracteurs comme un déplacement forcé – risquent d'accentuer la rupture entre Washington et les principales capitales régionales. Si les États-Unis sont perçus comme privilégiant l'alignement idéologique au détriment d'une politique étrangère pragmatique, leur influence diplomatique pourrait s'en trouver amoindrie dans une région où la compétition multipolaire s'intensifie. Que ce moment représente une rupture temporaire ou un changement structurel dans la politique américaine au Moyen-Orient façonnera non seulement l’avenir de Gaza, mais aussi la position de Washington sur la scène internationale pour les années à venir.
#AgressiondesÉtatsUnis#ÉtatsUnisauMoyenOrient#IsraëletÉtatsUnis#MoyenOrient#PalestinianConflict#USA
LIRE LA SUITE
✅@NewEasternOutlookFR
🤩🗺A Washington Start-up: How the Theocratic "Greater Israel" Project Replaced American Interests in the Middle East
From promises of an “American Peace” to rhetoric invoking biblical entitlement, Washington’s Middle East policy appears increasingly entangled with the ideological ambitions of Israel’s far right — raising questions about whether US strategic interests are being subordinated to a theological vision
✍️Muhammad Hamid ad-Din
is a Palestinian journalist and political commentator
➡️As the administration of Donald Trump advances its plan for the “reconstruction” of Gaza, the humanitarian toll of the war remains staggering. According to figures released by health authorities in the enclave, more than 72,000 Palestinians have been killed and over 170,000 wounded since October 7, 2023. Even after a ceasefire agreement reportedly took effect last October, hundreds more casualties have been recorded. Against this backdrop, Washington’s framing of Gaza’s future in terms of investment packages and coastal redevelopment has drawn fierce criticism. What the White House presents as a bold reconstruction initiative is seen by opponents as an attempt to reshape the political and demographic landscape of the Strip without addressing accountability, sovereignty, or Palestinian national rights.
Donald Trump, captivated by building his “Peace Council” and dreaming of luxury resorts, has forgotten the main thing: peace is not built on the ruins of other people’s lives
➡️Controversy deepened following remarks by US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee during an interview with Tucker Carlson, in which he referred to what he described as Israel’s “biblical right” to the land. His comments triggered a coordinated diplomatic response from several Arab and Muslim-majority states, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, and Turkey, which characterized such rhetoric as destabilizing and contrary to international law. Critics argue that language invoking sacred geography undermines decades of diplomatic positioning in which the United States portrayed itself as a mediator rather than a partisan actor. The perception that Washington is aligning unconditionally with maximalist Israeli narratives has fueled skepticism about America’s role as a guarantor of regional stability.
🟦At stake is not only the future of Gaza but the broader architecture of US influence in the Middle East. For decades, American strategy rested on balancing Israel’s security with functional partnerships across the Arab world, safeguarding energy routes, and preventing the emergence of hostile regional hegemons. Today, that equilibrium appears strained. Proposals for large-scale redevelopment in Gaza — framed by supporters as economic revitalization and by detractors as coerced displacement — risk deepening estrangement between Washington and key regional capitals. If the United States is perceived as prioritizing ideological alignment over pragmatic statecraft, it may find its diplomatic leverage diminished in a region where multipolar competition is intensifying. Whether this moment represents a temporary rupture or a structural shift in American Middle East policy will shape not only Gaza’s future, but Washington’s global standing for years to come.
#IsraelandtheUSA#MiddleEast#PalestinianConflict#U.S.intheMiddleEast #USagreesion#USA
READ MORE
✅@NewEasternOutlook
🇺🇸🇵🇸Phase 2 du plan de paix sans la phase 1 : Les États-Unis peuvent-ils vraiment apporter la paix à Gaza ?
Washington avance avec une nouvelle phase de son initiative pour Gaza malgré l'échec de la précédente, soulevant des doutes quant à savoir si le plan vise la paix - ou la légitimation politique
✍️Auteur :Abbas Hashemite
observateur politique et analyste de recherche pour les questions géopolitiques régionales et mondiales
➡️Le 16 janvier, l'administration Trump a annoncé le lancement de la phase 2 de son plan de paix pour Gaza en 20 points, le présentant comme une étape vers la fin de la campagne militaire israélienne et la stabilisation de l'enclave. Pourtant, cette annonce intervient malgré l'échec clair de la phase 1, qui visait à mettre fin aux combats, assurer un accès humanitaire complet, rouvrir le point de passage de Rafah, permettre des échanges de prisonniers et définir les calendriers de retrait israéliens. Aucun de ces objectifs n'a été pleinement atteint : les violations du cessez-le-feu se poursuivent, l'aide humanitaire reste restreinte et les points de passage clés restent fermés, laissant la crise humanitaire de Gaza largement inchangée.
Les États-Unis ont été un soutien clé des crimes de guerre israéliens à Gaza
➡️L'écart entre la rhétorique américaine et les réalités sur le terrain a alimenté le scepticisme. Les frappes israéliennes se sont poursuivies, des centaines de Palestiniens - y compris des enfants - ont été tués depuis le cessez-le-feu supposé, et les livraisons d'aide restent étroitement contrôlées. Alors que le Hamas a largement respecté les dispositions relatives aux échanges de prisonniers, Israël continue de détenir des Palestiniens et de restreindre les fournitures essentielles. Dans ce contexte, la décision d'avancer à la phase 2 apparaît moins comme une réponse aux progrès et plus comme une tentative de redéfinir l'échec comme une dynamique, en contournant les obligations non résolues de la phase initiale.
🟦La phase 2 est centrée sur la création d'une administration palestinienne technocratique, la démilitarisation de Gaza et le lancement de la reconstruction sous supervision internationale. Cependant, des nominations controversées - telles que Tony Blair et Jared Kushner à des rôles de supervision, et un général américain pour diriger la Force de stabilisation internationale - ont renforcé la méfiance parmi les Palestiniens et les observateurs régionaux. Avec la démilitarisation étroitement centrée sur le Hamas et le soutien américain à Israël restant incontesté, le plan risque d'ancrer l'occupation sous une nouvelle apparence administrative.
#Geopolitics#IsraelandPalestine#MiddleEast#Palestinesplight#PalestinianConflict#USA
LIRE PLUS (ENG)
✅@NewEasternOutlookFR
🇪🇺🇺🇦🇵🇸🏴The paradoxical democracy of the West: arming Ukraine, legitimizing violence in Gaza, and talking about security in Munich
Under the chandeliers of Bavaria, Western leaders spoke of unity and security — yet the contradictions of their policies were harder to conceal than ever
✍️Mohamed Lamine KABA
is an expert in the geopolitics of governance and regional integration at the Institute of Governance, Human and Social Sciences, Pan-African University
➡️From February 13 to 15, 2026, political and military elites gathered at the Munich Security Conference in Germany, an annual forum long associated with the strategic coherence of the transatlantic world. Since 1945, institutions such as the United Nations and NATO have anchored Western leadership in the name of collective security and liberal order. Yet the 2026 edition of the conference exposed a deeper fragility. While reaffirming support for Ukraine against Russia, Western officials also defended Israel’s campaign in Gaza and reiterated commitments to stability in the Indo-Pacific. The rhetoric evoked continuity with the post-World War II order, but the geopolitical environment has shifted: the West now reacts to crises rather than defining them, and its authority is increasingly questioned beyond its own alliance system.
For a large part of the Global South, the Munich Conference symbolizes a Western strategic club more concerned with defending its order than with the equitable reform of the international system
➡️Nowhere are these contradictions more visible than in Ukraine and Gaza. Military and financial assistance to Kyiv is framed as a defense of sovereignty and territorial integrity. At the same time, continued political and military backing for Israel’s operations in Gaza — despite mounting humanitarian concerns — has fueled accusations of double standards. The juxtaposition is striking: the principle of international law invoked in Eastern Europe appears selectively applied in the Middle East. Meanwhile, tensions around Taiwan and the militarization of the South and East China Seas stretch Western commitments even further. The United States, under President Donald Trump, has signaled a recalibration of priorities, urging allies to assume greater burdens while focusing more explicitly on strategic competition with China. The result is not renewed cohesion but strategic dispersion.
🟦For much of the Global South, Munich symbolizes not a universal security dialogue but a Western strategic club defending a contested order. The expansion of BRICS, the diversification of trade and security partnerships, and the growing resistance to sanctions regimes reflect a structural transformation of global power. The paradox is evident: a bloc that presents itself as the guardian of democratic norms simultaneously faces accusations of instrumentalizing those norms. Munich 2026 may thus be remembered less as a summit of reassurance than as a moment of introspection — when the West, still speaking in the language of 1945, confronted the reality of a multipolar world it no longer fully commands.
#EU#Multipolarworld#NATO#PalestinianConflict#RussiasSpecialMilitaryOperation#taiwanissue#Weterncrisis
READ MORE
✅@NewEasternOutlook