Repercussions of the "Ben Gurion Battle": American Right's Division Shakes Foundations of Alliance with Israel

Washington – Said Arikat - 2/22/2026

News Analysis

In a scene reflecting deep transformations within the American right, the lengthy debate between conservative commentator Tucker Carlson and the US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, filmed at Ben Gurion Airport, ignited a fierce discussion about Israel's position in American policy priorities. The interview, which lasted more than two hours, appeared to be a public political trial of an alliance long considered self-evident within the Republican Party, but this time it took place before a self-divided conservative audience.

The encounter, which could be called the "Battle of Ben Gurion," revealed a division between two wings: a rising populist nationalist current within the "MAGA" movement (which brought Donald Trump to the White House) that questions the cost of foreign engagement, and a conservative evangelical Christian current that views supporting Israel as a strategic and doctrinal commitment. Carlson repeatedly hinted that Huckabee seemed more preoccupied with defending Israeli government policies than representing the priorities of his American constituents, while the Ambassador responded that the alliance with Israel is not an emotional matter but a cornerstone of American national security.

Perhaps the most controversial moment came when Carlson asked if Israel, according to a literal religious interpretation, had the right to claim lands extending from the Nile to the Euphrates. Huckabee replied: "It's fine if they take it all," before partially retracting and describing the question as irrelevant. Despite the retraction, the statement sparked a storm of criticism, bringing back to the forefront the discourse of "divine right" which contradicts international law and the principle of self-determination, and places Washington in an awkward position as a mediator supposedly committed to a political solution.

The debate comes amidst the ongoing Gaza war, where military operations continue to claim Palestinian lives despite a fragile truce, and with accelerating Israeli steps to consolidate control in the West Bank. Ministers in Benjamin Netanyahu's government have openly spoken of "eliminating the idea of a Palestinian state," deepening the rift with international consensus on the two-state solution. In this context, Saudi Arabia called on Washington to explicitly clarify its position on Huckabee's statements, considering that such proposals undermine the foundations of regional stability and any serious political path.

In parallel, Donald Trump is hinting at the possibility of striking Iran, a prospect Carlson strongly opposes, citing polls indicating that a limited percentage of Americans support engaging in a new war in the Middle East. Huckabee refused to rely on polls in national security matters, considering that leadership is not managed by the logic of popularity, without providing concrete data on a direct threat from Iran against the United States.

The confrontation was not limited to strategic issues. Carlson criticized Huckabee's meeting with Jonathan Pollard, convicted of spying for Israel, and questioned the continued flow of American money to a country with a relatively high standard of living compared to some American regions. He also referred to previous connections between Ehud Barak and Jeffrey Epstein, while acknowledging that Barak was not accused. These points reflected an attempt to link support for Israel to sensitive issues affecting conservative public opinion.

Moreover, the controversy preceded the broadcast of the interview; Carlson said that his team was subjected to a "strange" security detention at Ben Gurion Airport, while Huckabee responded that what happened was a routine procedure at an airport known for its strict measures. Despite the intensity of the debate, both parties maintained a degree of respect, reflecting an understanding that the disagreement goes beyond individuals to a deeper struggle over the identity of the American right and its role in the world.

Historically, the Israeli right has strengthened its relations with the Republican Party and evangelical movements, based on the conviction that the conservative Christian base represents a more stable ally than liberal American Jewish segments. However, this gamble today faces a clear generational test; young conservatives are less enthusiastic about religious narratives that justify expansionist policies, and more inclined towards an isolationist discourse focused on domestic priorities.

The interview reveals that the American-Israeli alliance is no longer beyond debate within the right, but has become part of a battle to define national interests. When the logic of "divine right" is put forward to justify expansionist policies, the discussion shifts from strategic calculations to a doctrinal certainty that is difficult to question. This shift weakens Washington's ability to claim neutrality, and gives its adversaries material to question its credibility. It also deepens internal division, as Republican politicians find themselves between a skeptical populist base and a traditional elite that sees Israel as an organic extension of shared Western identity.

In the field, data is accumulating that complicates the scene further, as human rights reports indicate that most settler attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank occur under the protection or acquiescence of the occupation army. These facts empty any talk of a political horizon of its content, and give the discourse of creeping annexation practical cover. Ignoring this dynamic in the internal American discussion turns the debate into an ideological argument detached from reality. If the division within the right continues, unconditional support for Israel may become a growing political burden in Washington.