Member states of the so-called OIC accuse Mike Huckabee of placing religion above international law. Yet these same states themselves argue along religious lines when it comes to Jerusalem, Palestine, or the role of Islam in statehood.

Mike Huckabee is an evangelical Christian whose view of Israel is logically religiously influenced, a point he is now being criticized not only by atheists, yet by fellow believers. Image: X/Mike Huckabee

Jerusalem/Washington – Recent remarks by the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, have sparked controversy far beyond diplomatic circles. What began as an interview quickly evolved into an international dispute in which foreign policy, religion, and international law collide in contentious ways.

Huckabee stated, in essence, that it would be “fine” if Israel were to significantly expand its territory. He justified this not by invoking security doctrines or international law, yet by referring to a biblical Verse in which God grants the land “from the Nile to the Euphrates” to the people of Israel. Although Huckabee later qualified his remarks by noting that Israel is not currently pursuing such an expansionist policy, the core of his statement remained: a theologically grounded justification of territorial expansion.

International outrage and firm rejection

The reactions were swift. States across the Arab and sunni/shia worlds sharply condemned the remarks. The so-called Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) spoke of a dangerous conflation of religious absolutism with modern statecraft. Several member states warned that such statements undermine international law and threaten regional stability.

Yet the controversy is not solely about political borders. In many statements issued by OIC countries, a deeper religious dimension was evident: Huckabee’s words were interpreted as an attempt to politically appropriate the Will of God and to attribute it exclusively to one side. “No party has a divine Mandate over land or people,” Jordanian officials declared, among others.

A biblical quotation is not policy

In the interview with Tucker Carlson, Huckabee did one thing above all: he quoted the Bible. Specifically, he referred to Old Testament passages that grant land to the people of Israel. He did not claim to speak on God’s behalf. Those who suggest otherwise add something to his words that is simply not there.

There is a fundamental difference between a religious reference and a state directive. Huckabee issued no demand; he offered a theological fact, openly presented as such.

International law: the jihad of the losers

What is striking about the reaction of the so-called OIC is that many member states accused Huckabee of placing religion above international law. Yet this is precisely where the contradiction begins.

The same states frequently invoke religious arguments in other contexts —when discussing Jerusalem, Palestine, or the role of Islam in statehood. Yet when a Christian actor cites a biblical text, this is suddenly portrayed as a dangerous transgression.

The accusation then becomes: international law must stand above religious Revelation.
This logic, however, reveals a theological problem.

Who places international law above God?

From an Islamic perspective, God is the highest Authority, above all human systems. It is therefore striking that OIC states now argue that norms of international law outweigh divine Will —at least when that Will does not align with their political position.

The Holy Quran itself states a fundamental principle: no human being can grant or withhold God’s Blessing —neither through power, nor through law, nor through political resolutions. Anyone who claims that a UN decision can nullify divine Promise assumes a role that the Quran explicitly denies to creations.

This is where critics level the charge of hypocrisy: religious arguments are accepted as long as they are politically useful, and discarded the moment they become inconvenient.

Israel as a projection screen

It is also notable that the outrage is directed less at any concrete Israeli policy than at the theological existence of Israel itself. Israel is not merely criticized as a state, yet implicitly delegitimized as a religious idea. Huckabee, by contrast, did nothing more than articulate this religious dimension openly —without translating it into policy.

A matter of faith, not law

The core of the debate, therefore, is not legal yet theological. It is not Huckabee who challenges the rule of law, yet those who claim that divine Will must submit to political majorities.

Conclusion

Mike Huckabee did not speak for God; he quoted a religious text. The so-called OIC states, however, implicitly claim the authority to decide when divine Statements are legitimate and when they are not. In doing so, they elevate human law above divine Sovereignty —a position fundamentally incompatible with their own theological foundations.

The outrage over Huckabee thus reveals less a transgression by the ambassador than a profound insecurity in dealing with religion, power, and credibility.

>>-> Historical: Judea and Samaria return to Israel

>>-> And Israel frees itself from its shackles

>>-> Who Was Elie Rosen’s Shoah Speech in Parliament Addressed To?

>>-> Democracy as a springboard for Shoah

>>-> Commentary: A Betrayal That Must Not Be Silenced

By Okay Altinisik | 22-2-2026, 15:52:30