By John Q. Hosedrinker 
US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee declared at an international conference that the United States owes its very existence to Israel and its Jewish heritage. These remarks followed similar assertions by President Donald Trump, who claimed that Israel would not exist without his actions as president. Trump also commented on Israel’s conflict with Lebanon, suggesting an alternative approach involving Syria.
Read the original article here
The idea that the United States would not exist without Israel is a notion being floated by Ambassador Mike Huckabee, a statement that directly challenges the historical timeline and common understanding of both nations’ origins. This perspective suggests a deeply intertwined destiny, where the very foundation of America is contingent upon the existence of the modern state of Israel, a concept that many find difficult to reconcile with established historical facts. It raises questions about the motivations behind such a claim and how it aligns with the responsibilities of an ambassador.
This particular viewpoint appears to stem from a specific interpretation of Christian theology, often held by certain evangelical groups. This interpretation posits that the creation and rise of the United States were divinely ordained, with a primary purpose being the protection of the “chosen people” – the Israelites. From this perspective, the US is seen as an instrument of God’s plan, essential for facilitating prophetic events, particularly those surrounding the End Times and the eventual return of Jesus Christ. This theological framework suggests that without Israel fulfilling its prophesied role, the United States itself would lack its raison d’être.
The assertion that the US predates Israel by a significant margin makes Huckabee’s claim particularly jarring. The United States, as a nation, was established in 1776, whereas the modern state of Israel was founded in 1948. This nearly two-century discrepancy leads many to question the logic of a nation founded centuries later being instrumental in the existence of a much older one. It prompts a mental exercise of imagining historical causality where the American Revolution, the Civil War, and all subsequent American history somehow depended on an event that wouldn’t occur for over 170 years.
Furthermore, this perspective seems to disregard the foundational principles and historical narratives that Americans typically associate with their nation’s genesis. Figures like George Washington, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution are central to the American identity, none of which are linked to the existence of Israel in historical accounts. The idea that these pivotal moments and figures were somehow contingent on a future geopolitical entity is a significant departure from conventional historical understanding, leading to bewilderment and skepticism among many.
The role of an ambassador is generally understood to be the representation and advocacy for their own country’s interests abroad. When an ambassador makes claims that appear to prioritize another nation’s existence over their own, it can raise concerns about divided loyalties and the true agenda being pursued. This is especially true when the claims seem to align more with a specific ideological or theological agenda rather than the practical geopolitical interests of the ambassador’s home country.
Some interpret this stance as a form of “Israel-first” allegiance, where the interests of Israel are placed above those of the United States. This is often associated with a particular brand of Christian Zionism, where supporting Israel is seen as a religious imperative. However, critics argue that such a position can be detrimental to national interests and can lead to foreign policy decisions that are not necessarily in the best interest of the ambassador’s own citizens.
The theological underpinnings of this belief system are complex and, for some, deeply troubling. The idea that the Jews must fulfill certain prophecies related to the End Times, leading to events like Armageddon and the rapture, is a specific interpretation that has significant implications for how individuals holding these beliefs view both Jewish people and non-Christian faiths. Some critics point out the potential for this worldview to foster a sense of urgency for apocalyptic events, which can influence political decision-making in ways that may be perceived as destabilizing or even dangerous.
The suggestion that Huckabee’s motivations might be tied to a desire for the End Times, rather than solely the prosperity of either nation, is a pointed criticism. If his primary objective is to see certain prophetic events unfold, then his actions and statements, including those about Israel’s importance to the US, would be viewed through that lens. This interpretation raises questions about whether his advocacy is truly for the benefit of the United States or for the fulfillment of a religious prophecy, potentially even one that could involve global conflict.
The idea of an ambassador, or any public official, prioritizing a foreign nation’s existence or importance to the point of suggesting their own nation’s survival depends on it, can be viewed by some as bordering on treasonous. This strong sentiment arises from the fundamental expectation that a public servant’s primary allegiance should be to their own country and its citizens. When this appears to be undermined, even by a particular ideological or religious viewpoint, it can elicit a strong negative reaction.
Given the historical context of the United States existing for nearly two centuries before the establishment of modern Israel, the claim that the former would not exist without the latter appears to be a significant misrepresentation of historical events. This has led to widespread incredulity and has prompted many to suggest that individuals holding such views should perhaps familiarize themselves more thoroughly with historical facts, potentially by “closing the Bible and opening a history book.”
Ultimately, the assertion that Ambassador Huckabee has defied expectations and made a bold claim about the inextricable link between the existence of the US and Israel highlights a clash between historical reality and a specific theological interpretation. It raises important questions about the influence of religious beliefs on foreign policy, the definition of an ambassador’s role, and the fundamental narratives that shape national identity and historical understanding.