标签： Asia

In a televised exchange that has ignited significant controversy, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee engaged in a theological and geopolitical debate with conservative commentator Tucker Carlson regarding Israel’s territorial rights. The discussion, aired on Friday’s episode of The Tucker Carlson Show, centered on biblical interpretations of land promised to the Jewish people.

Carlson directly questioned Huckabee about the boundaries described in Genesis 15, which references territory spanning from the Nile to the Euphrates rivers—encompassing approximately five modern nations alongside currently occupied Palestinian territories. When pressed on whether Israel held divine entitlement to this extensive region, Huckabee responded that “it would be fine if they took it all,” though he subsequently characterized this as “somewhat of a hyperbolic statement.

The ambassador later clarified his position, asserting that Israel seeks only to protect its citizens rather than actively conquer neighboring states. However, he notably added that if Israel were attacked and subsequently victorious in such conflicts, the acquisition of additional territory would become “a whole other discussion.”

This exchange occurs against the backdrop of Huckabee’s June statements to Bloomberg News, where he declared that establishing a Palestinian state in the occupied West Bank no longer represents US policy objectives. The ambassador suggested instead that Israel’s “Muslim neighbours” might surrender land to facilitate Palestinian statehood.

The interview concluded with unexpected consequences for Carlson’s production team. Following his sit-down with Huckabee in Israel, Carlson reported that Israeli security officials detained him and confiscated passports, questioning his executive producer about the interview’s content. Carlson subsequently criticized both Israeli authorities and the American embassy for their handling of the incident, asserting that American citizens cannot expect their government to prioritize their interests over those of the Israeli government.

The full 165-minute interview, released Friday, has sparked renewed debate about Christian Zionism, US foreign policy in the Middle East, and the appropriate role of religious texts in modern geopolitical discourse.

The inaugural session of the Trump-proposed Board of Peace for Gaza convened Thursday at the newly renamed Donald J Trump Institute for Peace in Washington DC, generating immediate controversy across multiple fronts. President Trump, designated as the board’s lifetime chairman, presided over a meeting that outlined a $7 billion commitment from nine nations toward Gaza relief efforts and revealed plans for a controversial $10 billion allocation of U.S. taxpayer funds for the board’s broader operations.

Bulgarian diplomat Nickolay Mladenov, appointed to oversee Gaza’s demilitarization, reported that police recruitment with 2,000 Palestinian enlistments was already underway, emphasizing that reconstruction would not commence until Hamas was fully disarmed. The proceedings were immediately met with fierce criticism from lawmakers and social media users who questioned the legality of allocating federal funds without Congressional approval.

The meeting featured several controversial moments, including Jared Kushner’s assertion that no participants would “personally” profit from Gaza’s reconstruction—a statement many observers found deliberately misleading given Kushner’s unofficial role as a government volunteer. Billionaire Apollo Global Management CEO Marc Rowan raised additional concerns by quantifying Gaza’s coastline as “$50 billion of value alone” that needed “unlocking and financing.”

International reactions drew particular scrutiny, with Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif labeling Trump the “saviour of South Asia” and Kazakhstan’s president presenting an award to Trump—gestures critics described as “beyond parody” and emblematic of a servile diplomatic culture. The absence of any mention of “Gaza” or “Palestinian” in the board’s charter, combined with the seating of Palestinian representative Ali Shaath without an identified title, further fueled accusations that the initiative disregarded Palestinian interests.

Palestinian journalist Motasem Dalloul, reporting from Gaza, condemned the proceedings as primarily benefiting Israel while ignoring essential issues like ending the siege, allowing entry of food and medicine, and conducting reconstruction without “blackmail.” The meeting’s peculiarities—including Trump briefly falling asleep during speeches and the YMCA song playing during a group photo—added surreal elements to what many critics characterized as a potentially unlawful appropriation of public funds for private interests.

The Trump administration has formally notified Congress of its intent to pursue a civil nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia that notably omits stringent non-proliferation safeguards traditionally required by the United States, according to a Reuters exclusive. This proposed ‘123 Agreement’ marks a significant departure from established US policy by not explicitly prohibiting the kingdom from enriching uranium or reprocessing spent nuclear fuel.

Unlike previous nuclear pacts with nations such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which made US cooperation conditional on a commitment to forgo enrichment, the preliminary document with Saudi Arabia stipulates only ‘additional safeguards and verification measures’ for the most sensitive areas of cooperation. This language leaves the door open for Riyadh to potentially develop domestic enrichment capabilities—a move analysts consider far more transformative for the region than the concurrent pursuit of advanced F-35 fighter jet sales.

US law mandates that a 123 Agreement must be in place before significant nuclear exports can be licensed. Furthermore, lawmakers have historically insisted that partners also adopt the ‘Additional Protocol,’ which grants the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) enhanced inspection powers. The UAE, the only other Gulf state with a US nuclear partnership, signed this protocol in 2009. However, the Trump administration’s November notification to congressional committee heads indicated it is not pursuing this protocol with Saudi Arabia.

The administration’s report positions US industry at the forefront of Saudi Arabia’s civil nuclear development. The finalized agreement could be submitted to Congress as early as February 22nd, triggering a 90-day review period. During this time, both the House of Representatives and the Senate would need to pass resolutions of disapproval to block the pact in its current form.

This diplomatic approach underscores President Trump’s deal-centric foreign policy, which often prioritizes economic exports over the non-proliferation concerns of the traditional foreign policy establishment. The concession on enrichment appears to be a key to securing the deal, aligning with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s ambition to capitalize on the kingdom’s vast uranium reserves. Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman has publicly stated the intent to enrich and sell uranium, framing it as both an economic imperative and a matter of national pride.

The nuclear negotiations are part of a broader suite of potential deals with Riyadh. Concurrent discussions on F-35s have involved assurances to lawmakers regarding the maintenance of Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge (QME), with sources indicating the proposed sale involves a lower-grade variant of the jet. Simultaneously, Saudi Arabia is exploring alternative defense partnerships, including a fighter jet co-production deal with Turkey and potential investment in a UK-Italy-Japan next-generation fighter program.