Theology, nationalism, and geopolitics have long been intertwined with the idea of “Greater Israel.” Rooted in a literalist reading of the Book of Genesis—particularly Genesis 15:18–21, which describes land stretching “from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates”—the concept envisions an Israel encompassing not only present-day Israel and the Palestinian territories, but also parts of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. This idea, once limited to religious Zionist groups, keeps coming up in politics, causing controversy everywhere.
In February 2026, the U.S. re-introduced the topic into diplomatic discussions. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, in an interview with Tucker Carlson, seemed to confirm that it would be alright if Israel claimed the full biblical territory. The remark, while clarified as not current policy, elicited strong reactions in the Middle East and prompted challenging questions about how theology influences foreign policy. Examining Greater Israel’s ideological origins, the growth of Christian Zionism, Israel’s domestic politics, and the regional and American strategic outcomes is crucial to grasping the impact of this rhetoric.
The Biblical Claim and Its Political Translation
Genesis, especially God’s promise to Abraham, forms the theological basis for Greater Israel. For those who believe, these promises hold true forever and are linked to specific areas. The land, from the Nile (sometimes called the “river of Egypt”) to the Euphrates, is believed to have been divinely given to Abraham’s descendants, Isaac and Jacob.
The shift from this religious account to political statements has consistently been a source of dispute. In late 19th-century Europe, Jewish Zionism was predominantly secular and nationalist in nature. Early Zionist leaders, including Theodor Herzl, presented their movement not primarily as a prophecy but as a response to antisemitism and the lack of a state. Modern Israel’s founding in 1948 was a result of international relations and conflict, rather than a divine mandate.
In Israel, some religious Zionists, especially after the 1967 Six-Day War, saw the West Bank’s capture as a sign from God. Political groups, viewing territorial compromise as a strategic and theological threat, facilitated the expansion of settlement movements. The use of comprehensive historical maps, including Palestinian areas, by contemporary figures such as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, reinforces the notion that the Greater Israel ideology persists.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, despite a more reserved official tone, has occasionally spoken about Israel’s biblical heritage and historical claims, generally within established international borders or strategically secure areas. Israeli politics is still influenced by the conflict between maximalist theology and pragmatic statecraft.
The Rise of Christian Zionism
To grasp the controversy over Huckabee’s comments, one must study Christian Zionism, a significant theological and political force, particularly in the US.
Christian Zionism is older than modern Jewish Zionism. Originating in Protestant millennialist ideas from the Reformation, it grew significantly in the 19th century due to dispensationalism, which John Nelson Darby widely promoted. History was segmented into separate divine periods by this framework, which also posited that the return of Jews to their homeland was essential for end-times occurrences, such as Christ’s Second Coming.
Christian Zionism gained popularity within American evangelicalism during the 20th century. Publications like “The Late Great Planet Earth” and groups such as the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem engaged millions in interpreting Middle Eastern events through prophecy. Prophetic milestones were seen in Israel’s founding in 1948 and Jerusalem’s capture in 1967.
Christian Zionism, unlike its secular counterpart, believes Israel’s current state and growth are divinely guided, not just a result of national will. Unwavering political support is viewed as a mandate based on biblical verses such as Genesis 12:3. As a result, many evangelicals oppose territorial concessions, believing they go against God’s will.
This theological commitment has had a real impact on American policy. The Republican Party relies heavily on evangelical voters. Christian Zionists had long pushed for the U.S. embassy to be moved to Jerusalem and for Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and the Trump administration’s actions reflected these priorities. Huckabee’s assertions are part of a more extensive ideological environment.
Diplomatic Firestorm: Regional Reactions
The Arab world reacted quickly and harshly to Huckabee’s comments. The remarks were denounced as inflammatory and destabilising by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Foreign Ministry stated that such language went against international law and the U.S.’s historical stance against unilateral West Bank annexation.
The idea of biblical borders covering Egypt and Jordan, who have peace treaties with Israel, is a direct challenge to their national sovereignty. According to the Arab League, the remarks worsened tensions, especially with ongoing violence in Gaza and the West Bank.
The strategic issue is more than just words. Territorial claims rooted in religion could incite public anger and bolster extremists in an area with significant historical conflicts and unstable political situations. Symbolic resonance can hinder diplomacy, even without current policy support for such claims.
Reports of evangelical perspectives influencing official policy grew, as the US State Department offered no immediate explanation. Regional actors find ambiguity to be destabilising.
International Law and the Question of Sovereignty
Modern international law is in sharp opposition to the Greater Israel concept. State sovereignty, territorial integrity, and self-determination, as outlined in the UN Charter, form the basis of the post-World War II order. Taking land by force is generally considered unacceptable.
Since 1967, Israel’s control over the West Bank and East Jerusalem is disputed by international law, and most of the world sees the settlements as illegal. Moving claims outside these areas into adjacent sovereign nations would be a significant shift from current practices.
Scholars contend that using religious justifications for land acquisition weakens the secular legal structures that manage global affairs. This could normalize religiously motivated irredentism, potentially encouraging similar demands globally, like those for “Akhand Bharat” by Hindu nationalists or the revival of a caliphate by Islamists.
Strategic Scenarios
In the first scenario, Greater Israel ideas are symbolic, staying in ideology/theology, not becoming state policy. Even with religious nationalist pressures, Israeli administrations maintain a focus on practical regional partnerships, especially via normalisation pacts with significant Gulf states. Economic integration, security cooperation against shared threats, and technological partnerships are more important than extreme territorial goals. Here, American officials moved fast to state that Ambassador Mike Huckabee’s words represented his personal theology, not the official position of the U.S. Reaffirming existing diplomatic frameworks and rejecting territorial expansion based on biblical claims reassures Arab allies of Washington’s commitment. Despite lingering suspicion and distrust, particularly among Palestinians and Arab publics, the regional balance remains intact. This scenario is most likely due to Israel’s reliance on strategic alliances, foreign investment, and stable regional relations for its security, economy, and diplomacy. Prophecy is secondary to pragmatism in this instance.
The second scenario anticipates a slower but significant change. Israeli leaders are not overtly calling upon biblical maps from the Nile to the Euphrates, but instead are steadily expanding their territory through settlement growth and targeted annexation in the West Bank. Security, demographic, or historical claims regarding Judea and Samaria serve as the main justifications for these actions, rather than explicit appeals to Genesis. Nonetheless, the symbolic weight of past statements remains, even if not formally backing a Greater Israel. Regional actors and Palestinian leaders view gradual annexation as a step in a larger ideological progression, increasing concerns that territorial compromise is no longer feasible. This action could escalate tensions with the Palestinians, damage Israel’s relationships with Jordan and Egypt (who have peace agreements with Israel), and hinder U.S. ties with Arab allies who desire stability. The process of normalising relations with Gulf states could face slowdowns or increased conditions, particularly if public opinion within those nations pressures their leaders to distance themselves from perceived expansionism. Even without major land grabs, steady changes can alter the political landscape towards extreme goals.
The third, most destabilising scenario is an escalatory backlash where words trigger wider regional unrest. Militant and hardline groups in the Middle East use biblical claims to support their claims of existential threats. When the environment is like this, maximalist ideologies fuel ideas of civilisation wars, making it easier for extremist groups to recruit and radicalise people. Governments are backing away from cooperating with Israel as public opposition erodes diplomatic normalisation agreements and fuels internal unrest. A belief in Israel’s intent to expand beyond contested lands could be as unsettling as any actual move toward expansion. Escalating tensions in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, or Israel’s northern borders might lead to a larger conflict, drawing in regional states and obstructing global diplomatic initiatives. Achieving a Greater Israel that spans several independent nations is unlikely given military, population, and international factors. However, the destabilising impact of ideological talk should not be disregarded. Maximalist ambitions, both symbolic and strategic, create ripple effects beyond theology in a region already suffering from historical conflicts and delicate power equilibriums.
Internal Israeli Dynamics
We must acknowledge that Israeli society is diverse. Secular Israelis, liberal Zionists, and security pragmatists are often against maximalist territorial goals. They focus on global credibility, financial security, and population trends.
Demographic facts on the ground in Israel challenge the notion of Greater Israel. Granting millions of Palestinians full citizenship would be essential to upholding democratic ideals. This means expansionist goals conflict with the core issue of preserving Israel’s Jewish and democratic nature.
Theological Debates Within Christianity
There is mounting opposition to Christian Zionism. The Catholic Church and mainline Protestant denominations typically do not accept Old Testament land promises as literal. They prioritise universal salvation and justice, setting aside territorial covenant.
Within evangelical circles, generational differences can be seen. Younger Christians are becoming more vocal about Palestinian rights and are questioning blind support for Israeli government actions. Advocates for Palestinian Christian perspectives dispute Christian Zionism’s theological basis, asserting it distorts biblical texts and worsens hostilities.
Thus, the theological discussion remains unresolved. It mirrors wider conflicts in Christianity concerning nationalism, prophecy, and political involvement.
Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy
The US has a long-standing role as a mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. American diplomacy’s credibility suffers if it’s seen as motivated by apocalyptic theology instead of strategic thinking.
Christian Zionist influence has the potential to bolster U.S.-Israel relations while simultaneously creating challenges for regional diplomacy. American neutrality might be questioned by Arab states working with Washington on security, energy, and counterterrorism. Religious rhetoric could be used by Iran and non-state actors to portray the conflict as civilizational instead of territorial.
From a strategic viewpoint, American leaders need to weigh domestic political concerns against the realities of global affairs. Stability requires clear policy statements rooted in international law and strategic aims, not theological justification.
Conclusion: Theology, Nationalism, and the Fragile Middle East Order
The debate over Huckabee’s statements highlights a greater conflict: sacred stories versus contemporary governance. While grounded in ancient religious texts, the notion of Greater Israel holds volatile ramifications in an area characterised by shared governance and historical wounds.
To supporters, it signifies a divine pledge and a restoration of fairness. To critics, it implies imperialistic goals and a threat to their existence. In reality, Israeli governments typically blend ideological leanings with practical limitations. Yet rhetoric matters. Words possess the power to mould perceptions, rally support, and change strategic decisions within a volatile area.
The Middle East’s stability relies on agreed-upon borders, mutual recognition, and adherence to international standards, as opposed to prophetic maps. A central geopolitical puzzle of the 21st century is how religious stories and secular diplomacy can coexist.
GreaterIsrael, ChristianZionism, MikeHuckabee, TuckerCarlson, Genesis 15 18 21, BiblicalBordersIsrael, IsraelExpansion, Israel PalestineConflict, WestBank, BezalelSmotrich, Benjamin Netanyahu, USIsraelRelations, EvangelicalSupportIsrael, MiddleEastGeopolitics, ArabLeagueReaction, SaudiArabiaIsraelTensions, JordanEgyptIsraelPeaceTreaty, GazaWestBank, InternationalLawIsrael, ZionismVersusChristianZionism, ProphecyPolitics, Dispensationalism, IsraeliSettlements, TwoStateSolution, MiddleEastStrategicScenarios, PoliticalTheologyGeopolitics, IsraelGulfStates
