UNS: Several Arab governments have issued strong condemnations of remarks made by , the United States ambassador to Israel, after he publicly supported expansive Israeli territorial claims based on what he described as a “biblical right” extending from the Nile to the Euphrates rivers.
The comments were made during an interview with U.S. media personality and were widely characterized by regional governments as provocative, inconsistent with diplomatic norms, and contrary to international law.
Details of the Remarks
In the interview, Ambassador Huckabee argued that Israel holds a biblical entitlement to territory stretching from the Nile River to the Euphrates, stating: “It would be fine if they took it all.”
He framed his position within a theological interpretation, invoking the concept of divine providence while defending Israeli policies in Gaza and the West Bank.
Across the Arab world, the remarks were interpreted as an endorsement of the concept commonly referred to as “Greater Israel,” a term used in some Israeli political discourse to describe territorial expansion beyond internationally recognized borders.
Official Arab Responses
Jordan
Jordan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the remarks as “absurd and provocative,” stating that they violate diplomatic norms, infringe upon state sovereignty, and constitute a breach of international law and the UN Charter.
Amman reaffirmed that the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip are occupied Palestinian territories under international law. The Kingdom reiterated its commitment to a two-state solution based on the June 4, 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state.
Egypt
Egypt’s Foreign Ministry condemned the statements as a “flagrant departure” from the principles of international law and the UN Charter.
Cairo stressed that Israel holds no sovereignty over occupied Palestinian land or any other Arab territory and rejected any annexation of the West Bank or separation of Gaza.
Egypt further noted that the remarks contradict the publicly stated position of rejecting annexation of the occupied West Bank.
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Ministry condemned the ambassador’s comments “in the strongest terms,” describing them as reckless and dangerous.
Riyadh warned that such statements threaten international peace and security and undermine the foundations of the international order. The Kingdom reiterated that achieving a just and comprehensive peace requires ending the occupation and establishing an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
Kuwait
Kuwait’s Foreign Ministry described the remarks as a clear violation of international law and relevant UN resolutions, emphasizing that they undermine state sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Kuwait warned that legitimizing control over others’ territories would escalate tensions and weaken efforts aimed at restoring regional stability.
Iraq
Iraq’s Foreign Ministry characterized the statements as a serious overreach that contradicts the principles of international law and infringes on the sovereignty and territorial unity of states.
Baghdad reaffirmed its rejection of policies based on domination or the imposition of faits accomplis, calling for strict adherence to international law as a foundation for regional peace.
Oman
Oman condemned what it described as illegitimate rhetoric endorsing control over Arab lands, including occupied Palestinian territory.
Muscat warned that such statements undermine prospects for peace and threaten regional security and stability, reaffirming support for Palestinian self-determination and statehood within the 1967 borders.
Political and Strategic Analysis
The coordinated response reflects several underlying dynamics:
Defense of Sovereignty:
Arab states framed their objections primarily in legal and diplomatic terms, emphasizing respect for the UN Charter, territorial integrity, and the prohibition of annexation.
Sensitivity to Expansionist Narratives:
Public endorsement of expansive territorial claims by a senior U.S. diplomat is viewed as particularly destabilizing amid ongoing conflict in Gaza and heightened tensions in the West Bank.
U.S.–Arab Relations Under Scrutiny:
Multiple governments referenced the official position of President Trump rejecting annexation, signaling concern that the ambassador’s remarks may not align with declared U.S. policy.
Regional Realignments:
While not explicitly stated in official communiqués, analysts suggest that prolonged diplomatic friction could accelerate diversification in Arab foreign policy partnerships.
Broader Context
Ambassador Huckabee, appointed in April 2025, has previously expressed theological support for Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank.
Israeli Prime Minister has, in past interviews, referenced historical and spiritual attachments to broader territorial visions, though official Israeli policy remains subject to domestic political considerations and international constraints.
The controversy emerges at a sensitive juncture, as diplomatic efforts continue to prevent further escalation in Gaza and stabilize the broader regional security environment.
Summary
Arab governments strongly condemned remarks by U.S. Ambassador Mike Huckabee supporting expansive Israeli territorial claims.
Statements were described as violations of international law, diplomatic norms, and state sovereignty.
Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and Oman reaffirmed commitment to a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders.
