Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 02/21/2026 1:52:50 AM PST by Its All Over Except ...
Mike Huckabee's analogies regarding land rights and defense, specifically his suggestion that if a people like the Irish can defend their land, they can keep it—have been viewed as a significant rhetorical own goal that complicates the very pro-Israel stance he intended to defend.
Critics and media analysts have highlighted several major ramifications of this logic and analysts have noted the internal contradiction in Huckabee's argument. By shifting the justification from a divine mandate (the Promised Land) to a right of conquest/defense media commentators pointed out that the Irish analogy is particularly fraught. If land ownership is determined solely by the ability to defend it through force, it removes the moral high ground of "legitimate ownership" that Huckabee simultaneously tried to claim when he said Israel only wants land they "own legitimately".
Mainstream reporting from The Times of Israel and other diplomatic-focused outlets characterized his comments as a move toward a "might makes right" foreign policy. This is seen as a radical departure for a U.S. Ambassador, as it ignores international law and decades of U.S.-led peace negotiations based on "land for peace" frameworks. Realizing the potential fallout, Huckabee later characterized his "take it all" and related defense comments as "somewhat hyperbolic". However, media coverage suggests the damage was already done, with the "Irish defense" analogy remaining a primary point of criticism for its lack of diplomatic foresight. Mainstream media analysts and critics noted that Mike Huckabee’s arguments regarding religious and cultural ties to land created a "rhetorical trap" with significant implications for U.S. domestic policy.
The reaction to his line of reasoning—that religious identity, language, and cultural alignment grant a "legitimate" right to a homeland—focused on several key areas led to critics pointing out that if "Americana" and religious conversion were the primary criteria for land rights, it would fundamentally subvert the strict immigration and sovereignty standards typically championed by the conservative base. Commentators observed that by emphasizing a divine right that can be accessed through formal adoption of a faith (like Judaism under Halakha), Huckabee inadvertently suggested that land ownership is fluid and based on personal choice rather than national borders and that anyone adopting "American" culture and Christianity could theoretically claim a similar right to U.S. soil.
Tucker Carlson himself pressed this point during the interview, framing Huckabee’s stance as prioritizing biblical interests over American national security and domestic stability. Media coverage from The Times of Israel highlighted that this specific logic alienated paleoconservative viewers who view land rights as strictly tied to citizenship and existing borders, not religious or cultural affinity.
Analysts argued that Huckabee’s "take it all" and culture-based land rights logic would be impossible to apply consistently. If a cultural shift is the requirement for statehood or land rights (as Huckabee suggested for Palestinians), it creates a standard that could be used to justify mass displacement or resettlement based on subjective cultural assessments. Ultimately, the media consensus was that Huckabee's attempt to use religious and cultural justification for territorial expansion created a "double-edged sword" that could be used to challenge the very concepts of national sovereignty and immigration control he otherwise supports.
In the aftermath of Mike Huckabee’s interview with Tucker Carlson, mainstream media and political analysts have described the exchange as a strategic disaster that backfired on several fronts. Instead of mending a rift within the Republican Party as intended, the interview exposed deep ideological contradictions that critics argue have undermined the administration's broader policy goals.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Please, no use of Ad Hominem against anyone as the use of them deflects from the discussion at hand.
We don’t need the Trump administration’s border policies to be undermined...
I’m glad it not didn’t go well... I think?
Often the truth offends others.
There is no possible land for peace solution, the Palestinians have always has a policy of genocide for Israel. Huckabee is being honest and realistic, anyone thinking their can be a land for peace deal is being totally ignorant of the reality.
Also if you know any modern history, let alone ancient history you would know the Palestinians have NO claim to any of that land, sip zero nada, they need to be placed back in the sounding around countries from which they were thrown out, I might add thrown out because they were animals in their behavior back then as well.
Those people teach their children to murder from kindergarten on up, they are thoroughly corrupted.
With all that said I am not for violently destroying them, I just support giving them back to the Arab nation. I just also believe they will never have their violent desires satiated so it will likely always turn to blood with them.
What you say is a failure I say was an honest assessment and solution to the actual issue
do you have a link to the full interview
Real Source? Tucker Carlson?
I don’t know you.
Your bio?
“Clown world advances under Biden”
Credibility Zero.
Land for peace is what got Israel in the predicament they’re currently in. It just gets worse for every inch of land they give them. It’s a fool’s errand to give pali’s anything, because they deserve nothing but destruction at this point.
Is your source found only in AI?
Sounds like the Rothschild propaganda has been totally effective with you. But just in case, here’s another Rothschild propagandist, back from presumably nearly his grave:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15579503/Trump-tariffs-defeat-Iran-attack.html
It’s not that Huckabee’s use of the Irish analogy removed “the moral high ground from his argument. There was no moral high ground in the first place.
It is patently absurd to think a claim of “divine mandate” could ever settle a land dispute in the real world.
What are you even talking about?
I presented a biblical and historically accurate opinion; you really are a piece of bad work making such a claim.
Do the devils work elsewhere.
Well, if God is real then the claim is the only way.
Not absurd unless the person is incapable of believing in God. Therefor your premise is rejected as it assumes only one valid belief (atheism or at least there is no God of Isreal) can be correct, which is literally wrong as there is a God.
>> Land for peace is what got Israel in the predicament they’re currently in.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Land for peace didn’t work in the OT times.
It doesn’t work now.
In no way does “Land for Peace” fit into YHWH’s forever covenant with Abraham.
Period, end of story.
Jackass Tucker’s warped views notwithstanding.
Every Christian knows this.
FWIW, how do we know that Carlson didn’t edit the interview?
Trust but verify.
Nations and borders are, and have always been, a consequences of demographics, access to resources, and wars. It is rare for a border to stay fixed for more than two or three hundred years. There is no magical date in history at which the lines defining a country are fixed and immutable.
You be you, boo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.