Everyone is talking about Tucker Carlson’s interview with U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee. It has amassed millions of views, and if there’s one item that caught attention, it was Huckabee’s view that Israel had a biblical right to the land from the Euphrates River in Iraq to the Nile River in Egypt. 

Carlson was shocked and pressed him on this:

“What does that mean? Does Israel have the right to that land? Because you’re appealing to Genesis, you’re saying that’s the original deed.”

Huckabee was clear: “It would be fine if they took it all.” 

Some were in shock. Israeli hasbarists like Eylon Levy tried to tone it down – responding on X that “literally nobody” with power in Israel believes this and to think so is “a delusional fantasy of the antisemite’s imagination.” To which he added, “Stop spreading mindless conspiratorial bullshit.”

Even Haaretz journalist Gideon Levy opined that Huckabee was an extremist who neither represented the U.S. nor Israel, “he barely represents its crazies,” he wrote. “Huckabee Speaks Boldly in Ways Even Ben-Gvir and Kahane Wouldn’t Dare,” was Levy’s title: 

“Not for nothing did Carlson say: This man doesn’t represent my country; he represents Israel. It’s neither of these, Carlson. This man doesn’t represent Israel; he barely represents its crazies. But it’s definitely possible that he represents an America in the making, one whose Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently lauded the West’s “Christian heritage” while in Munich.”

But then, the ‘liberal’ Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid proved both the Levys wrong. 

In a press conference Monday for his party Yesh Atid (‘There is a Future’), Lapid answered a question from a religious Kipa News  journalist:

“Good afternoon sir. The Ambassador Huckabee said this week, and we know the extent of the American administration on the government here, that he supports Israeli control from the Euphrates to the Nile, this means [control] over Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, do you support it or do you think this should be stopped?”

Lapid’s answered:

“Look, I don’t think I have a dispute on the biblical level [about] what the original borders of Israel are. The Euphrates, the last time I checked, was in Iraq. I don’t think that when the Americans entered Iraq, they experienced great relief. I support anything that will allow the Jews [to have] a big, vast, strong land, and a safe shelter for us, for our children, and for our children’s children. That’s what I support.”

Lapid was challenged on the size: 

“How vast?”

“However possible.”

“Until Iraq?”

“The discussion is a security discussion. The fact that we are in our ancestral land… Yesh Atid’s position is as follows: Zionism is based on the bible. Our mandate of the land of Israel is biblical. The biblical borders of Israel are clear. There are also considerations of security, of policy, and of time. We were in exile for 2,000 years… you don’t really want all this lecture, right? At least you were not waiting for it… The answer is: there are practical considerations here. Beyond the practical considerations, I believe that our ownership deed over the land of Israel is the bible, therefore the borders are the biblical borders.”

“Wait, so fundamentally, the great, big land of Israel?”

“Fundamentally, the great, big and vast Israel, as much as possible within the limitations of Israeli security and considerations of Israeli policy”. 

So there you have it. The bible is our deed. Like the first Israeli Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, said. 

Lapid has stated his principle of “maximum Jews on maximum land with maximum security and with minimum Palestinians” over ten years ago. Now he is saying that the “maximum land” is just a question of exigency – “practical considerations.” 

A ‘liberal’, ‘secular’ Israeli opposition leader, just told us that “Zionism is based on the bible.” 

I think we need to believe him. We need to stop talking about Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir, Smotrich, and Huckabee. It’s Zionism, stupid.