In an interview with US journalist Tucker Carlson, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee stated that Israeli control over territory extending from the Nile to the Euphrates could be viewed as acceptable under interpretations of the Old Testament. He clarified that such a view does not imply that Israel is currently pursuing this objective, but suggested that, were it to occur, it might be considered legitimate from that religious perspective.
The remarks revive longstanding debates about expansionism framed in theological rather than international legal or contemporary political terms. Within strands of Jewish intellectual history, particularly as interpreted through the Torah and Talmudic literature, notions of territorial promise have been invoked in varying ways. These texts have informed currents within modern Jewish thought, including segments of the contemporary right.
At the same time, Jewish thought — like other religious and philosophical traditions — has never been monolithic. Interpretive diversity has produced conservative and literalist readings alongside more radical positions that seek direct political application of scriptural concepts. Such approaches often stand in tension with evolving global realities, including international norms, shifting state structures, technological transformation and changing understandings of religion itself. Conversely, other Jewish voices reject expansionist or violent interpretations, advocating instead for coexistence and peaceful engagement with neighboring states.
“From the Nile to the Euphrates:” The Divine Promise Complex Between Politics and Theology
This statement is not merely provocative; it reflects an underlying philosophical posture. At the textual level, the Old Testament includes passages that describe divine promises of land to the Israelites, sometimes delineating expansive territorial boundaries. The central issue, however, is not the existence of such texts, but the manner in which they are interpreted and situated within the framework of the modern nation-state and the contemporary international legal order.
The broader question is whether appeals to sacred scriptures — across religions and sects — can override international law and the principles of the modern state, thereby reviving forms of religious or sectarian contestation grounded in particularistic authority rather than universal legal norms.
Scriptural traditions have generated diverse modes of interpretation, ranging from literalist to exegetical and critical readings. When Huckabee draws a distinction between a “theological narrative” and “contemporary politics,” he appears to seek insulation from the political consequences of religious claims. Carlson’s line of questioning, however, underscores the extent to which US political culture — particularly within segments of the evangelical movement associated with Huckabee — remains shaped by theological interpretation.
At the level of Jewish theology, there is no single, unified doctrine, but rather a broad and diverse spectrum of approaches. Certain religious currents regard the land as an integral component of religious identity, while nevertheless conditioning political action on specific moral or theological criteria. By contrast, some Haredi strands have historically opposed Zionism on the grounds that it prematurely “hastens redemption,” thereby contravening divine timing. Other religious Zionist movements, however, seek to reconcile the modern state with scriptural promise, viewing political sovereignty as intertwined with religious fulfillment. Accordingly, the notion of promise does not translate into a fixed political program; instead, it remains a contested field of interpretation and debate within Judaism itself.
Within strands of US evangelical theology — particularly those shaped by eschatological or end-times frameworks — the establishment of Israel and sustained support for it are often understood as milestones within a prophetic narrative. In philosophical terms, this orientation signals a shift in the locus of politics: away from diplomacy, pragmatism, institutional order and the calculus of interests that characterized the post-World War II system, and towards a metaphysical reading of events, in which political developments are interpreted as elements of a divinely ordained historical plan.
This raises a fundamental question: can a global superpower be guided, even partially, by the logic of “fulfilling prophecy?” The issue becomes more pressing in light of a sizeable domestic constituency that subscribes to such theological premises and may, directly or indirectly, shape political decision-making.
In Huckabee’s remarks, Israel is accorded a distinct moral exceptionalism, framed within a dichotomy of “good and evil.” Such language situates Israel outside ordinary geopolitical equivalence with neighboring states. Within this perspective, proposals such as a Palestinian state are rendered illegitimate, while expansive territorial claims — extending symbolically from the Nile to the Euphrates — are presented as morally defensible.
The Theological Dimension and the Foundations of the “Greater Israel” Concept
The formulation cited by Huckabee — “from the Nile to the Euphrates” —is not a modern political construct, but echoes a scriptural passage long referenced in Jewish and Christian theological discourse as a divine promise. The Book of Genesis states: “On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, ‘To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates.’” (Genesis 15:18, ESV).
The Hebrew Bible also refers to key locations in the broader region, including Sinai (Exodus 18:1) and territories east of the Jordan (cf. Deuteronomy 4:46). Interpretive debates have emerged regarding the identity of Abraham’s rightful heirs. Some have argued that the promise might extend to the descendants of Ishmael rather than Isaac. Rabbinic authorities, however, have generally rejected this interpretation as theologically unsound, fearing that such ‘heretical’ ideas might seep into the Jewish community and undermine both communal cohesion and the broader Zionist project. Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, for example, has stated: “Regarding the inheritance of the land, Ishmael is not considered the seed of Abraham, for the Holy One, blessed be He, already told Abraham on this matter.”
Today, the issue extends beyond its historical-theological foundations. Certain contemporary right-wing currents treat these scriptural texts not merely as spiritual references but as sources of political and territorial entitlement, often in tension with modern international law and secular governance. In August 2025, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that he was on “a historic and spiritual mission” for “generations of Jews that dreamed of coming here and generations of Jews who will come after us” and that he was “very attached” to the vision of the Promised Land and Greater Israel.
Such statements indicate that the concept of the “Promised Land” — sometimes articulated in expansive geographical terms — remains present within strands of contemporary Israeli political discourse, extending beyond traditional rabbinic interpretation into the language of current state leadership.
This emerging generation, as described by its advocates, is portrayed as grounding its fundamentalist doctrine in passages from Deuteronomy. The text states: “When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if it responds to you peaceably and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. And when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword.” (Deuteronomy 20:10–13, ESV; cf. 20:14–15).
The same chapter continues: “Thus you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not cities of the nations here. But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes.” (Deuteronomy 20:15–16, ESV; cf. 20:17–18).
Within this framework, the doctrine of Jewish-Israeli expansionism does not stop at advocating territorial enlargement; it also fashions the appropriate soldier, the appropriate battlefield, and the use of extreme violence against opponents — through killing, siege and even enslavement — even if those cities were to surrender. From such texts one can discern the ideological foundations of the contemporary Israeli far right and the sources of its well-documented brutality.
As such, a critical element in mobilizing segments of Israeli society against perceived internal and external adversaries is the invocation of religious rulings, particularly by elements of the extreme right. The Israeli soldier who kills civilians may, in many instances, understand his actions as an act of worship and religious devotion.
In one such ruling, Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, son of Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, stated: “It is permissible to fire upon and bomb Khan Younis and all places from which rockets are launched at Jews. The Arabs living in these places are not innocent but murderers who aid terrorists. Whoever kills them should not feel remorse, because they are murderers and accomplices to murderers.” He declined to frame the matter in terms of ethical restraints in warfare. Such pronouncements function as religious legitimation for violence, framing military action — including actions affecting civilians — not as a tragic necessity of war, but as a divinely sanctioned obligation.
Between Religion and Colonialism
The concept of expansion under the banner “from the Nile to the Euphrates,” often associated with the idea of “Greater Israel,” rests on scriptural references in the Old Testament and has been discussed historically, including by early Muslim scholars such as Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi. Yet it is equally clear that it has also functioned as a colonial strategy.
From this perspective, Western support for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine is understood not solely in religious terms. This is based on the view that a Jewish state would serve as a guardian of the region and as a forward intelligence, military and security outpost capable of monitoring developments across the Arab and Islamic worlds. Moreover, Palestine’s geography rendered it significant in imperial calculations — northeast of the Gulf states, south of the Levant and Turkey, northeast of Egypt and Africa and west of Asia. This positioning rendered it an exceptionally valuable base for Western imperial interests once the political and financial costs of direct colonial rule became unsustainable, as illustrated by Britain in Egypt, France in Algeria and Italy in Libya. As these burdens mounted, imperial planners turned toward establishing a proxy colony that could function as a forward barrier against the Islamic expansion they had long feared, dating back to the period preceding the Crusades.
Historically, Western powers had intervened directly — first in the medieval Crusades, and later in the 17th and 18th centuries, when they established bases, administrations and legal systems across the region. Over time, however, they concluded that the most effective strategy was to implant a political entity whose religion and identity differed from those of the surrounding populations. This strategy involved reviving ancient biblical ideas, gathering Jews from across the diaspora, and reactivating religious, national and linguistic bonds, all supported by substantial Western economic, military and political backing. In the end, colonial ambition and ideological conviction converged in shaping this project.
A Region of Theological and Historical Conflict
Ibn Hazm commented on the notion of “Greater Israel,” particularly the Genesis verse: “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates.” He rejected its historical validity, stating: “This is a lie and a fabrication, for if it refers to the prophet of Israel, as they claim, they never possessed anything from the Nile — not even a span of land amounting to a ten‑day journey from it. Between the Nile and the vicinity of Jerusalem lie the well-known deserts, the region of Hadar, then Rafah, Gaza, Ashkelon and the Shara Mountains — lands that fought them throughout the entire duration of their kingdom and subjected them to the harshest trials until their rule collapsed. Nor did they ever possess anything of the Euphrates, not even a ten-day distance from it.”
Contemporary Israeli extremists, by contrast, treat this promise as unfulfilled and assert a duty to realize it. They aim to implement it by cultivating soldiers and a generation committed to this vision, as articulated in Netanyahu’s statements.
Ibn Hazm highlights the historical conflict zones between the Israelites and the peoples of the region, including Rafah, Gaza, Sinai and Jordan. The notion of a sacred right to Jerusalem, Palestine, Sinai, the Nile or the Euphrates was never historically realized. Efforts to achieve this involved displacing indigenous populations through violence, oppression, and enslavement.
The conflict is not rooted in contemporary Muslims or Islam, which rejects enslavement and colonialism, but in longstanding regional ambitions. Past Israeli projects failed, as Ibn Hazm noted, yet were revived in the modern era with British and Western support. Today, some openly claim the land between the Nile and the Euphrates as divinely promised, regardless of the historical inhabitants.
The Concept of Legitimacy According to Huckabee and Bypassing International Law
Huckabee frequently reframes questions from practical “utility and interests” to “virtue, identity and shared morality.” In his discourse, Israel is more than an ally; it embodies “democracy” and “values” amid a region of “hostility” and “authoritarianism.” Legitimacy, he suggests, rests not only on US interests but also on value-based alignment and moral judgment — supporting those perceived as “right” and “like us.”
Yet when moral legitimacy is entwined with religious belief, a philosophical tension emerges: political governance risks becoming a matter of salvation, curse or fate rather than social contract and law. Huckabee frames support for Israel as a moral imperative reflecting US identity.
Bypassing International Law
Israel’s explicit threats to expand and claim territory based on biblical aspirations occur entirely outside the framework of international law. Modern principles of sovereignty, as enshrined in the UN Charter, prohibit one state from asserting sovereignty over another’s territory. Seizing land by force or invoking historical or religious claims is legally illegitimate. No “biblical right” grants political entitlement to land within sovereign states. Today, the area between the Nile and the Euphrates encompasses Egypt, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, all fully sovereign. International law provides no mechanism to convert personal declarations into recognized borders or legal rights.
Here we see a conflict between the “legitimacy of promise” and the “legitimacy of law.” International law treats borders as human arrangements, not sacred decrees, based on the non-use of force, sovereignty and self-determination under the UN Charter. Yet, invoking promised borders implies a higher, divine legitimacy above international laws or the UN Charter. The danger of political theology is that it recasts legal violations as religious duties. When society is told an action “fulfills a promise,” legal deterrence loses its authority. Without internal acceptance of the law as supreme, enforcement becomes external pressure rather than a moral restraint on behavior.
Saudi Condemnation and Arab Rejection
The Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs, alongside several Arab foreign ministers, swiftly condemned Huckabee’s statements, calling them “dangerous, provocative and a serious threat to the region’s security and stability.” Saudi Arabia declared that it “utterly rejects” his suggestion that Israeli control over the entire Middle East could be acceptable. The kingdom stressed that these remarks violate international law, the UN Charter and diplomatic norms, and set a dangerous precedent coming from an American official. Huckabee’s position was labeled as extremist, threatening peace and security and the United States was called upon by Riyadh to clarify its stance on this hardline rhetoric. Saudi Arabia reaffirmed that a just, comprehensive peace requires ending the occupation and establishing a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
The United States’ Response and the Salience of the Far Right
Huckabee’s remarks reflect the theological orientation of extreme evangelicals, a segment of Protestant Christians who adhere to a literal reading of the Bible. They form a significant faction within the Republican Party, and most are ardent supporters of Israel, viewing their backing as extending beyond politics into religion. Within this milieu, backing Israel is framed as both a religious duty and a divine mandate — an outlook that Huckabee himself exemplifies as one of the faction’s most prominent figures.
In his interview, Huckabee asserts that Evangelicals take the Bible literally and see the establishment of Israel as having prophetic significance. At the same time, they also believe in democratic values and freedom of worship, so their support for Israel stems from both religious and moral convictions, not merely political considerations. Many US policymakers align with this current, which may help explain the delayed official US response, which only came after Arab pressure led by Saudi Arabia. The Saudi statement formally called for clarification of the US administration’s position. Subsequently, the US State Department and the US embassy in Israel stated that the remarks had been “taken out of context” and did not reflect any change in official US policy. The internal struggle within the Republican Party — between factions that differ over the extent of US support for Israel and its alignment with the “Make America Great Again” movement, to which Carlson himself belongs — further illustrates the broader political context in which Huckabee’s remarks were received.
Trump has previously described Israel as a tiny country and expressed support for its expansion, including into the Golan Heights, Gaza and other territories. Huckabee’s statements, however, were the most radical and audacious. These remarks are inseparable from official US silence regarding Netanyahu’s public statements about forming new regional alliances to confront Shiite and Sunni powers.
Similarly, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham’s comments alongside journalist Hadley Gamble generated broad controversy, reigniting debate within the Republican Party about the scope and limits of US-Israel relations and their tension with the “America First” doctrine. Thus, at its core, this is a theological problem within the Republican Party and the US political elite. One faction prioritizes “America First” and criticizes unconditional support for Israel, while another advocates unlimited backing based on the ideological foundations of Zionism. These differing perspectives influence US foreign policy in general and Middle East policy in particular — a region, Huckabee emphasized, that cannot be understood by geography alone, but must be seen in light of its history of religious conflict.
Conclusion
It can be argued that Huckabee’s remarks about Israel potentially controlling territory “from the Nile to the Euphrates” are not merely a slip of the tongue or a casual reference to ancient religious texts. Rather, they reflect a profound tension between two opposing logics: the logic of “theological promise” and the logic of “international legal legitimacy,” between the sacred and the pragmatic, between theology and contemporary international law.
When sacred texts are invoked to sanctify geography, borders shift from negotiable historical and legal arrangements into fixed, dogmatic lines beyond revision. This is the danger: politics burdened by metaphysics and theology, framed as the execution of a sacred historical plan, loses flexibility and resembles a struggle for salvation more than a conflict of interests.
As discussed earlier, the concept of “Greater Israel” is not a unified interpretation within Judaism but a matter of debate and interpretation. Moreover, it contradicts the principles of the modern international order, which, after two world wars, was founded on the de-sacralization of borders. Politically, turning support for Israel from a strategic choice into a religiously rooted moral obligation reproduces “political theology,” a phenomenon philosophers have long warned against, conflating faith with power, prophecy with sovereignty and doctrine with law.
Regarding Arab reactions, especially Saudi Arabia’s, they reaffirmed the authority of international law, the two-state solution, and the 1967 borders. This framing grounds the conflict in a legal and political context rather than a theological or biblical one. Adherence to the law, even amid fragile power dynamics, remains one of the few barriers preventing the region from descending into open-ended religious conflict — a reality well understood by Saudi strategists and Arab policymakers.
The US government must clarify its position, as the Saudi Foreign Ministry has demanded, and not remain silent on this sensitive issue that threatens the security of sovereign states and societies with deep-rooted identities, cultures and civilizations. Furthermore, the United States must demonstrate its seriousness in separating politics from theology, thereby showing respect for contemporary international law and the modern nation-state. The danger in such statements lies not only in their content but in normalizing the idea that geography can be redefined based on particular interpretations of sacred texts or eschatological visions. Once opened, this door could apply universally, creating a world in which allegedly sacred claims override legal governance.
