Huckabee’s Interview Should Spell the End of Radical Zionism
As I wrote in the first installment, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee’s interview with Tucker Carlson last week showed us just how reckless radical Zionists can be — willing to jeopardize the interests of their own party, their own nation, and even the world for the sake of their extremist ideology.
Huckabee’s explosive suggestion that Israel could legitimately demand most of the land in the Arab world (based on a Biblical interpretation of God’s promise to Abram that his descendants would be given all the land between the Nile and the Euphrates) led to an immediate geopolitical firestorm.
Suddenly, instead of carefully negotiating peace with a complex coalition of players throughout the Middle East, the Trump administration is forced into the position of having to repair relations with each of those nations — in part, as Politico has reported, by offering apologias for Huckabee.
But along the way, it has become clear that Huckabee’s interview revealed another obvious liability radical Zionism poses to the U.S.: those efforts to convince Arab nations that America is a serious adjudicator of tensions and conflicts in the region have no credibility. Not as long as radical Zionists like Huckabee still have co-conspirators in high positions within the U.S. government.
Recalling Huckabee Is Not Enough: Radical Zionism Must Be Purged From Our Politics
And so, with the peace and safety of Israel, the Church in Middle East, and even the world at stake, it becomes clear that the Trump administration must question every U.S. official with influence over matters of life and death — and purge those who stand in Huckabee’s corner.
In addition to Huckabee, President Donald Trump could start with Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. And even that would only be a small beginning.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth
In 2018, War Secretary Pete Hegseth flouted international law on behalf of radical Zionism when he said in a speech to an Israeli audience that “there’s no reason why the miracle of the reestablishment of the Temple on the Temple Mount is not possible.”
Calling for the building of a third temple is perhaps the most radical and explicitly occultic expression of Zionism possible. It’s an ambition opposed for centuries by Catholic saints and arguably condemned by Christian Scripture itself.
“A step in that process is the recognition that facts and activities on the ground truly matter,” he continued. And then he addressed directly the question of the radical Jewish settler movement: “That’s why going to visit Judea and Samaria, understanding that the very sovereignty over Israeli soil, cities, locations, is a critical next step to showing the world that this is the land for Jews, and the land of Israel.”
It was a direct endorsement of the annexation of the West Bank and of the settlements now being aggressively established by the Israeli regime.
Every one of these hundreds of settlements is illegal under international law, and the Trump administration has vowed never to allow Israel to annex the West Bank. But Hegseth has never recanted the radical Zionist views he expressed in that speech.
And he now oversees the United States armed forces in a time of potential global war over disputes between Israel and Middle Eastern nations.
Calling on him to either repudiate his radical Zionism or (better yet) step down is beyond reasonable, and urgently overdue.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio
Like Huckabee, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has actively opposed efforts to so much as moderate Zionist extremism as it affects the geopolitical challenges facing the U.S. in the Middle East.
He condemned sanctions against Netanyahu allies and Israeli cabinet members Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich – overt terrorist sympathizers widely considered unfit for office.
He has bypassed Congressional authority to transfer arms to Israel for its unpopular and criminal actions in Gaza.
He has dismissed the two-state solution, a position held even by many if not most Zionists and endorsed by the Vatican. His rejection out-of-hand of the two-state solution suggests he harbors a radical view that prefers Israeli rule over Palestine.
He has publicly equated calls to “free Palestine” with Jew hatred, claiming Americans who called for boycotts against Israel during its campaign of violence in Gaza were indirectly attacking “their Jewish neighbors and classmates.”
He even implemented what he called “a vigorous new visa policy that will prevent foreign nationals from coming to the United States to foment hatred against our Jewish community,” which, of course, he defined as expressing opposition to the violent radical Zionism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies.
Returning to Huckabee: A Look at Just How Radical Zionism Can Be
In a sane world, Rubio and Hegseth would attend official hearings and be asked to answer where they stand on the issues where their fellow radical Zionist Huckabee proved himself to be completely out of step with the voting public — as well as the Trump administration’s efforts toward peace in the Middle East.
When it came to the expansion of illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank currently being fostered by the corrupt regime of Netanyahu, Huckabee not only defended the crimes, but cast the indigenous Palestinians being driven out as terrorists. When Carlson pressed him, Huckabee made very clear that he considers even Christians in the Holy Land to be potential terrorists — claiming they are all trained “from age five” to “kill Jews,” and answering “I don’t know” when asked if these Christians could be suicide bombers.
Powerful men like Rubio and Hegseth ought to answer the question: Do you agree? Do you believe that the Christians of the Holy Land — the oldest community of believers, many of them direct blood descendents of the first disciples who received the Holy Spirit in the upper room at Pentacost — should be corralled by the secular state of Israel, treated with suspicion, and driven from their ancient home?
And that’s to say nothing of Huckabee’s absolute refusal to find fault in even the worst crimes Israeli forces have committed in Gaza, including widely condemned war crimes such as the killing of over 200 journalists in the Strip since 2023, the bombings of churches and hospitals, and the murder of children. Asked about each of these actions in turn, Huckabee spoke not a word of criticism against Israel, and often offered defenses that were little short of endorsements. There were arms hidden under those hospitals. Some of the children were Hamas recruits. The murdered journalists? At least “some” of them weren’t “real journalists” but Hamas fighters in disguise.
Do Rubio and Hegseth and other U.S. officials who have in the past expressed radical Zionist views agree? Do they endorse an ethnic cleansing that vast majorities of the voting public — including American Jews — find repulsive?
In perhaps the most on-the-nose test of Huckabee’s loyalties, Carlson also asked him directly about his decision to meet with a convicted traitor and spy, Jonathan Pollard, who stole U.S. intelligence secrets on behalf of Israel. With breathtaking smugness, Huckabee shrugged the whole scandal off, saying: “Frankly I don’t regret it.”
Does the U.S. War Secretary also find colluding with dual-citizen spies totally unremarkable? Would the Secretary of State go on record and make clear that, in his view, Huckabee’s interactions with a traitor and Israeli asset are not worth so much as a censure?
These are questions the public deserves answers to. Because if our key government leaders are in fact such radical Zionists that they will pursue their own radical ideology’s interests over and against ours, then you can be sure the public will have something to say about that – including in the way they choose to vote.
On Jeffrey Epstein: It’s Time for Public Officials to Say What Voters Are Thinking
One of the most disturbing things about Huckabee’s interview last week was his squeamish unwillingness to say a word about the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. He had “no idea” about the Epstein files released just weeks earlier by the Department of Justice, and wouldn’t offer any clear answers as to why the U.S. government still refuses to release the full extent of the materials. “I haven’t kept up with that.”
When pressed about the fact that even the little information currently available to the public clearly shows Epstein had ties to Israeli officials and people connected with Israeli intelligence, Huckabee waved the matter aside.
“But you’re the government official representing that White House—” Carlson began. “In Israel,” Huckabee shot back. He went on to suggest he’s got too much on his plate, as if the burning questions of the American public about one of the biggest corruption scandals in our nation’s history aren’t worth his limited time. “We have a pretty dynamic situation here, I don’t know if you know that or not, but there’s a lot going on in this part of the world and, frankly, that has not been [a] top-line item,” he said.
Huckabee’s dismissiveness about Epstein is deeply connected to the radical ideology that colored the rest of his comments throughout the interview. And just like his radical Zionist views on the West Bank, Gaza, and the Netanyahu regime, Huckabee’s views on Epstein are completely out of step with — no, in contempt of — public opinion in the U.S.
So add to the above questions for men like Rubio and Hegseth this much darker one:
Even from the limited view the government has allowed us to see of the scandal, we know that Epstein seems to have engaged in a long-running honeypot scheme to buy the silence and cooperation of powerful men through the abuse of trafficked American girls — some of whom were underage. Are you yourself in any way so compromised that you can’t simply stand with the public and demand the rest of the story?
Because that is the question on the public’s mind. How many of these men are themselves guilty of directly cooperating with a great moral betrayal of our families and the innocence of our children?
And after years of public agitation, we still have only a fraction of the picture when it comes to Epstein’s operations among our elites. And so at this stage, failure to take it seriously should cast a shadow of the blackest kind on the character and trustworthiness of any official who downplays it. As for those who have already done so openly, they should be immediately, publicly questioned, then ousted from public office if they fail to answer with radical honesty.
Because the Epstein question is perhaps the most important test of where each public official stands, and how they answer will reveal for all to see whether they are on the side of the American people – our families and especially our daughters – or on the side of a Zionist faction so radically incompatible with our society that it is no longer even a matter of ideological differences, but a matter of good vs. evil.
Conclusion: If Elected Officials Will Not Take Action, Voters Will
Americans will remove radical Zionists from public office. Every poll already reflects that inevitability. But the numbers are only a faint picture of what is to come.
The Trump administration is now in a position to begin acting on the clear will of the people who gave him a mandate to confront the things that the dangerous faction of radical Zionism is now demanding he act in favor of: Deep state corruption, the manipulations of elites against American interests, and what Trump himself has called “stupid wars.”
But if he doesn’t take it upon himself to act aggressively on the public’s behalf – taking actions like the ones outlined here and even more – then make no mistake: the public will do it themselves.
We’ve all heard of “bloodbaths” at the ballot box. But 2026 and 2028 are shaping up to be even bigger moral referendum years than 2016 and 2024.
And what it all comes down to is this: Either radical Zionists go, or the entire leadership of both major parties (who currently harbor them and do their bidding) will be driven out themselves.
(Republished with permission from Jason Jones Substack)
