Mike Huckabee, Trump’s pick for ambassador to Israel, has long called himself a Zionist FILE - Gov. Mike Huckabee, R-Ark., takes questions from the media, prior to laying a brick at a new housing complex in the West Bank settlement of Efrat, Aug. 1, 2018. President-elect Donald Trump will nominate former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee as ambassador to Israel. Trump said Tuesday that Huckabee is a staunch defender of Israel and his intended nomination comes as Trump has promised to align U.S. foreign policy more closely with Israel’s interests as it wages wars against Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.(AP Photo/Oded Balilty, File) By ADRIANA GOMEZ LICON November 13, 2024 https://apnews.com/article/trump-huckabee-ambassador-israel-ace1894ce731c36622d5f09982a0a9b2 Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to be ambassador to Israel, has long rejected a Palestinian state in territory previously seized by Israel and has repeatedly signaled his staunch support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Huckabee, a former TV host and Baptist preacher, frequently visits Israel and once said he wanted to buy a holiday home there. He has maintained throughout the years that the West Bank belongs to Israel, and recently said “the title deed was given by God to Abraham and to his heirs.” His argument for a so-called “one-state solution” contradicts longstanding official U.S. support for the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state. He has described the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas as “horrific” and " beyond anything I’ve ever witnessed in my lifetime” and argued that the U.S. needs to stand firmly behind Israel. Here are some things Huckabee has said over the years about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He is decisively against a two-state solution Huckabee has never supported a two-state compromise even when Netanyahu endorsed the idea in 2009. Israel captured the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem in the 1967 Mideast war. Palestinians want those territories for a future state and view them as parts of a single country now under military occupation. The U.S., along with most of the international community, has supported the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines as the cornerstone of a peace agreement. Even Israel’s hardline prime minister once endorsed a two-state solution while rejecting a return to Israel’s pre-1967 lines. Netanyahu now rejects the creation of a Palestinian state. Huckabee has never supported any solution that would require Israeli settlers to be uprooted. In an interview with The Associated Press in 2015, Huckabee, then running for the GOP presidential nomination, said recognizing the West Bank as Israeli would be the “formal position” of his administration. He criticized Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza and described settlers evacuated by Israeli forces as having been “marched at gunpoint.” “I feel that we have a responsibility to respect that this is land that has historically belonged to the Jews,” he said. He once compared the Iran nuclear deal to the Holocaust In 2015, Huckabee likened the Iran nuclear deal to marching Israelis “to the door of the oven,” a reference to the crematorium in a Nazi concentration camp during the Holocaust. Huckabee was criticizing then-President Barack Obama for his role in the agreement the U.S. and other world powers reached with Tehran. Republicans back then were united in their opposition to the deal, arguing it didn’t address Iran’s support for terrorism. Trump during his first administration withdrew from the deal, in which Iran agreed to limit its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. The comment was denounced by Democrats, but Huckabee stood by it. He doesn’t accept Palestinians as a term and criticizes ‘radical Muslims’ In a recent interview with a podcaster, Huckabee said he did not believe in referring to the Arab descendants of people who lived in British-controlled Palestine as “Palestinians.” “There really isn’t such a thing,” he said earlier this year on “Think Twice” with Jonathan Tobin. “It’s a term that was co-opted by Yasser Arafat in 1962,” referring to one of the early leaders of the Palestine Liberation Organization. During the same podcast, Huckabee described himself as an “unapologetic, unreformed Zionist.” In defending Israel, Huckabee said he wished people understood that “this is an extraordinary oasis in a land of totalitarianism surrounded by tyranny.” The former governor also said many “radical Muslims want to take us back to the seventh century.” “I don’t want to go back there,” he said. “I like modernity.” He expresses outrage over Oct. 7 attack by Hamas Huckabee has described the attack on Oct. 7, 2023, as “horrific” and “beyond anything I’ve ever witnessed in my lifetime.” He was outraged by how Hamas spread images of the killings on social media. “As horrible as the Nazis were, they weren’t posting their atrocities on social media and trying to trumpet what they were doing to the world,” he said in an appearance with the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. “Which is what makes this horrendous thing Hamas has done so much, to me, worse, because they want everyone to see what they’ve done.” Hamas-led militants killed some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and took about 250 people hostage. Israel responded with one of the deadliest and most destructive military campaigns in recent history, killing more than 43,000 people, Palestinian health officials say. ADRIANA GOMEZ LICON: Gomez Licon writes about national politics for The Associated Press. She is based in Florida.
After this happened, I remember being concerned that a genocidal response by Israel would be futile and sow the needs for even more aggressive terrorism with not just Hamas, but other groups who feel oppressed or otherwise may identify with Gazans. I did not anticipate Israel being able to successfully take out the entire command structure of Hamas. I also presumed other terrorist organizations and their sponsoring country(ies) would have been more involved than they were. I presume a form of "Diplomacy" between the US and potential Hamas allies took place, preventing a "fully committed" response by said Hamas allies. Genocide took place in Gaza, depending on how one chooses to define genocide. Do the ends of severely diminishing a dangerous terrorist organization and sending a booming message to those opposed to Israel justify its means? There are four takeaways I see: 1. If you attack Israel, you will suffer ten times the damage you caused. 2. If you hurt Israel, you will be eliminated, even at the cost of civilian casualties. 3. If an entity supports a terrorist organization and that terrorist organization hurts Israel, any collateral damage is on that supporting entity. 4. Any potential terrorist organization believing that have the support of a major sponsoring country my find themselves disappointed. Especially if Israel and their allies start talking regime change in that sponsoring country. Conclusion, terrorist attacks upon Israel are counter productive on all levels. Any entity look to improve their situation should seek to better educate their citizens and take advantage of various United Nations initiatives.
I don't think its counter productive on all levels.For starters the Democrat Party now knows they can't win the presidency supporting Israel,that is a major victory.Hopefully Iran stops screwing around and hurry up and build their nuclear weapons,that would change everything.
I would think the objectives of all non-terrorists would be peace. However, there are major differences between the parties regarding land and religion. Terrorism and war depreciate the value of land, religion, and quality of life for all participants, sometimes including non participants. While it seems Israel has a disproportionate influence on US politics and Arab communities within the US are under represented, I feel there is more the Arab community can do to improve their situation politically. Iran obtaining nuclear weapons may only escalate things in the short term. I dare not speculate here what this escalation, if it were to happen, might look like. I used to have an Iranian roommate. He said while he hated the Iranian regime, progress was being made regarding civil liberties within Iran. This was a few years ago and things may have since gone the other way, depending on how accurate GWB's recent posts are. The point is, if a major Middle Eastern Country(ies) have serious internal conflicts, is it not difficult for others to really know what they are dealing with? How does one know where they are at when deciding to lend political or any other kind of support under such circumstances? I believe at least part of the answer for the Arab community to achieve greater International prestige and political clout within the United States is to effectively address their internal issues.
Proving to the Democrat Party they can't win presidential elections if they support Israel is one of the best things they can do to improve their situation politically,if not the best imo. Iran obtaining nuclear weapons may escalate things but its the best protection Iran can have.The US has never tried to overthrow a regime with nuclear weapons and Israel would know they would be the first recipient of Iranian nukes if they and the US tried to do so.
I kind of started in one direction and ending up going in another direction. This post is to continue the direction of thought in the quoted first paragraph. It seems the underlying question to Israel - Arab relations, beyond internal conflicts of the respective parties, is how to effectively address the competing interests of land? As far as religion is concerned, if the underlying priority is not to get along with one's neighbors, you're doing it (religion) wrong. "They aren't making any more land, but they are making more people" is an old Realtor adage that comes to mind. There are several ways to look at a problem. For my purposes here, I'll propose a partial list of quantitatively, qualitatively, and meta. Meta's use here refers either inter-systemic relationships or a possible solution outside of local quantitative or qualitative solutions. The region in question is densely populated. Presumably, land is already being very efficiently utilized. This appears to suggest two choices: Someone has to move or both parties need to integrate at least on some levels. Presumably Gaza will be rebuilt with buildings that offer greater residential capacity than before. This reconstruction will require money, equipment, and labor. I wonder who is going to get stuck with the bill? (Rhetorical question). However, there should be great opportunities for Gazan's to improve their financial situation during reconstruction. Perhaps the reconstruction effort will lead to improvement in other aspects of their lives as well.
He's an Amazon employee. Yet Amazon has not said a word or done a thing to support him. Palestinian Islamic Jihad releases video showing Russian-Israeli hostage Alexander Troufanov is still alive in captivity https://nypost.com/2024/11/13/world...xander-troufanov-is-still-alive-in-captivity/