The creeping shadow of Israeli cartography

For decades, a broad segment of Arab intellectuals and politicians treated warnings about Israel’s expansionist ambitions with open disdain. Those who cautioned against the project of a “Greater Israel” stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates were dismissed as conspiracy theorists—prisoners of outdated nationalist or Nasserist fantasies shaped by moments long eclipsed by time.

Recent remarks by US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, in an interview with American commentator Tucker Carlson, suggest those fears were not illusions after all. They reflect a declared and deliberate strategy—one that has steadily gained ground and influence within US decision-making circles for years.

This vision rests on religious texts embraced by millions, framing absolute support for Israel not as a political or strategic choice but as the fulfillment of divine will.

Huckabee stated plainly that Israel holds a God-given right to this land. He went further, describing Israeli control over the entire Middle East as a positive outcome. When Carlson offered him an opportunity to reconsider or soften his remarks—reminding him that these territories fall within the borders of existing states—Huckabee insisted the idea be understood exactly as stated: Israel has the right to control whatever land it can seize, so long as it is capable of doing so.

Plans met with silence

This is how such projects always begin: by redrawing the map in the collective imagination. The land is “not final.” The borders are “artificial and temporary.” The expanse is a “historic right,” awaiting the proper moment—or the making of one.

Theodor Herzl did not begin with a state on the ground, but with an idea in a book. Decades of religious and nationalist discourse followed, reviving the “Promised Land” as a cultural construct—nourished, repeated and inserted into every forum. When World War I erupted and the Ottoman Empire collapsed, the idea became a political opportunity. The symbol preceded the rifle. Zionist associations came before the armies.

Before the Serbian wars of the 1990s, years of rhetoric framed Serbs as historical victims who must reclaim their land and dignity. The Battle of Kosovo, fought in the late 14th century, was resurrected as a powerful national symbol. Serbian President Slobodan Milošević delivered a now-infamous speech on its 600th anniversary, invoking centuries of suffering and reattaching Kosovo to the core of national identity. Then came the wars, the massacres and the ethnic cleansing.

Appeals to Trump

This is what is unfolding now: the reintroduction of the Arab map into the realm of political imagination. And once maps enter the imagination, they begin a long march toward realization—unless confronted by a forceful and unequivocal counter-narrative.

So far, the Arab response to Huckabee’s remarks has been softer than the moment demands. Individual statements from several Arab states were followed by a joint declaration from the foreign ministers of a group of Arab and Islamic countries. All rejected and condemned the remarks, warning against expansionist policies and arguing that they contradict President Donald Trump’s vision and peace plan.

This is the same President Trump who moved the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, breaking with decades of diplomatic precedent. His administration declared that the United States no longer considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank to be in violation of international law. He supported Israel’s strikes on Lebanon, Iran, Syria and Yemen—in word and in weaponry—and used the veto to block attempts to end the war.

Yet Arab states now plead with Trump to rein in his own ambassador to Israel—a man he personally appointed and once praised at an election rally as knowing the Middle East better than most in Washington, and as one of the faces representing the strongly pro-Israel base within the United States.

Arab governments appeal to Trump not because they are unaware that he is among the chief architects, advocates and theorists of this policy, but because they are unable to confront the consequences of acknowledging that fact. What is unfolding is, at best, a squandering of time and opportunity.

You are facing a clear, declared and blunt policy that targets your security and your land—even if you are counted among Washington’s allies and orbit within its sphere. Experience has shown that the American right’s loyalty to Israel, embodied by Trump and Huckabee, transcends all alliances—and even Israel itself. In this narrative, both Arabs and Israel become instruments in the pursuit of a religious and spiritual objective embraced by tens of millions and backed by the most powerful empire on earth.

Before it is too late

Reality dictates that a rupture with the United States is not a viable option. But silent dependency is not a wise one either. There is vast space in between, and numerous cards to play—even if only behind closed doors.

The states named within this vision must insist on a formal clarification from the US administration. This is a legitimate request, given that the speaker holds a senior diplomatic post within that administration. If Washington refuses to respond, it signals tacit acknowledgment of the substance of the remarks. If it issues a formal denial, that denial becomes an important document in Arab hands—and places the administration in direct tension with its own base.

Since Oct. 7, Israel has repeatedly tested Arab and Islamic reactions. The outcome has likely encouraged further escalation and opportunism. What climate could be more favorable for advancing deferred steps? The United States is governed by a far-right current that appears more supportive of Israel than many Israelis. Europe is economically and politically weakened. The resistance axis has fragmented. Arab and Islamic states, meanwhile, confine themselves to timid statements.

Clear messages must be sent: support for any expansionist project will not pass without consequences for American interests themselves. Arab states must invest in alternative international partnerships—if not to rebalance their relationship with Washington, then at least to wield them as leverage.

The language of interests must replace the language of wounded feelings. Instead of speaking of anger or disappointment, link these remarks to US strategic interests in the region—navigation routes, energy supplies, counterterrorism and other files Washington considers paramount.

Arab states should press with their full weight for Huckabee’s removal. True, policies often outlive individuals. But such a move would carry significant symbolic weight.

If Huckabee’s remarks pass with such ease, what follows will not be trivial. Israel has tested the Arab and Islamic response time and again since Oct. 7—and each time the reaction has signaled permissibility.

For that reason, this may be the final opportunity—before Israel’s dreams of new maps are etched into reality.