When a sitting United States ambassador declares that it would be “fine if they took it all,” diplomacy does not merely slip — it crosses a threshold. Mike Huckabee’s endorsement of full Israeli control over occupied Palestinian territory, delivered on The Tucker Carlson Show, was not an offhand remark. It was a political signal. And in the context of a 78-year conflict defined by land, law and legitimacy, such signals carry strategic weight.

For decades, successive US administrations have formally endorsed a negotiated two-state solution. That position was often inconsistently applied, and frequently undermined by events on the ground, but it served as a diplomatic anchor. It affirmed that occupation was not sovereignty and that territorial disputes required negotiation, not absorption. Huckabee’s declaration tears at that anchor. When a serving ambassador validates total territorial control, the message received across the region is unmistakable: Washington’s commitment to two states is unreliable for all purposes and intent.

The reaction was swift and unusually unified. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), on Thursday, will be convening an emergency meeting of foreign ministers in Jeddah, condemning Israeli occupation measures aimed at annexation, including new land-registration procedures in the occupied West Bank under the label of “state property”. The OIC warned that such measures alter the legal, political and demographic character of Palestinian territory and undermine the two-state solution.

READ: OIC slams US ambassador’s remarks on Israeli Mideast expansion as threat to regional stability

The Arab League, under Secretary-General Ahmed Aboul Gheit, issued a direct rebuke, describing the remarks as extremist and inflammatory. In a joint declaration, Arab and Muslim-majority governments rejected any claim of Israeli sovereignty over occupied Palestinian land and warned that expansionist rhetoric would further destabilise the region. Civil society voices were even sharper. The advocacy group DAWN called for Huckabee’s dismissal.

Former UN human-rights official Saul Takahashi argued that the comments reflect entrenched disregard within segments of the US political establishment toward Palestinian rights and international law.

Former UN human-rights official Saul Takahashi argued that the comments reflect entrenched disregard within segments of the US political establishment toward Palestinian rights and international law.

These reactions are rooted in more than diplomatic sensitivity. They reflect an accelerating reality on the ground. Settlement expansion continues apace. Land is reclassified as “state property”. Administrative mechanisms steadily entrench Israeli control over the occupied West Bank. Annexation is not announced in a single dramatic decree; it is consolidated through paperwork, zoning regulations and incremental legal redefinitions.

Huckabee’s statement therefore does not exist in isolation. It aligns with a broader trajectory in which the territorial basis for a viable Palestinian state is removed. To say “it would be fine if they took it all” is to signal that such consolidation is not merely tolerated, but acceptable.

Yet the deeper rupture may be unfolding not only in Tel Aviv or Ramallah, but in Washington itself. America is falling out of love with Israel. The war in Gaza has profoundly shaken what was once one of the most stable alliances in modern diplomacy.

Public opinion in the United States has shifted dramatically. Polling shows sympathy for Israel at a 25-year low. A recent survey found that 43 per cent of Americans believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza — a staggering figure in a country that has historically shielded Israel from diplomatic censure. The steepest decline in support is among Democrats, particularly younger voters. But cracks are now visible among Republicans as well.

Figures long associated with “America First” politics — including Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon and Marjorie Taylor Greene — have begun questioning unconditional support for Israel. Greene recently framed US military aid as funding a “foreign war” detached from American interests.

Figures long associated with “America First” politics — including Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon and Marjorie Taylor Greene — have begun questioning unconditional support for Israel. Greene recently framed US military aid as funding a “foreign war” detached from American interests.

Carlson has platformed voices arguing that Israel drags the United States into regional conflicts and diverts resources from domestic priorities. The slogan is shifting from “America First” to “America Only”.

This right-wing scepticism is not rooted in solidarity with Palestinians. It blends isolationism, fiscal nationalism and, in some quarters, conspiratorial undertones. But politically it is significant: support for Israel is no longer immune from internal challenge within the Republican base.

Meanwhile, several of America’s closest allies — including Britain, Canada, France and Australia — have recognised a Palestine statehood, mostly citing the catastrophic humanitarian conditions in Gaza. Washington has opposed these moves, but the shift underscores how reliant Israel has become on US diplomatic protection.

READ: ‘It would be fine if they took it all’: US envoy says about Israeli biblical claims

In this fragile environment, Huckabee’s rhetoric amounts to ideological brinkmanship. Brinkmanship involves pushing a volatile situation to the edge to test limits. Here, the test is whether the United States can openly signal acceptance of territorial absorption without collapsing its own domestic consensus or further isolating itself internationally.

The stakes extend beyond Palestine.

The prohibition against acquiring territory by force is a cornerstone of the post-1945 international order. If that norm is weakened in one theatre, it weakens globally. When an American ambassador appears to normalise annexation, it undermines the legal principles Washington invokes elsewhere — from Ukraine to the South China Sea.

The prohibition against acquiring territory by force is a cornerstone of the post-1945 international order. If that norm is weakened in one theatre, it weakens globally. When an American ambassador appears to normalise annexation, it undermines the legal principles Washington invokes elsewhere — from Ukraine to the South China Sea.

It also narrows the space for any political resolution. The two-state solution has long been described as moribund, hollowed out by settlement expansion and political paralysis. But there is a difference between a framework in distress and one implicitly declared obsolete. Words from a senior diplomat can accelerate what was gradual decline into formal abandonment.

Maximalist rhetoric strengthens hardliners on all sides. It reinforces narratives of existential struggle and sacred entitlement, leaving little room for compromise. Moderates are sidelined; absolutists are empowered.

If the United States intends to preserve even the possibility of a negotiated settlement, clarity is essential. Silence will be interpreted as assent. And if a serving ambassador publicly contradicts longstanding policy, accountability becomes unavoidable. Calls for Huckabee’s dismissal are not theatrical — they are an attempt to reaffirm that annexationist rhetoric does not define American diplomacy.

The US-Israel relationship has shaped Middle Eastern geopolitics for half a century. Today, it stands at a moment of profound recalibration. Domestic American opinion is shifting. International patience is thinning. Regional tensions are escalating.

Brinkmanship may energise ideological constituencies, but it rarely produces durable peace. When diplomacy edges toward endorsement of permanent territorial absorption, it does more than test limits — it redraws them.

And once redrawn, maps are difficult to restore.

OPINION: Israel fears a confident Muslim power—and that’s exactly what the region needs

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

© Middle East Monitor