Carlson, a titan of American conservative media with an audience of tens of millions, sat across from the United States Ambassador to Israel and told him, in so many words: you work for Israel, not for America. He described Israel as a "police state," accused Washington of reflexively siding with the Israeli government against its own citizens, and warned that the United States is being dragged into a catastrophic war with Iran at Netanyahu's behest — not for any discernible American interest.
None of this is new to us. Egyptian intellectuals, scholars, and policymakers have articulated these concerns for decades, only to be dismissed as conspiracy theorists or anti-Western populists. What makes this moment different is the messenger. Carlson cannot be silenced with the ready-made accusation of antisemitism. He is a white, conservative American who was, until recently, a pillar of the pro-Israel consensus. When such a figure breaks ranks, it signals a tectonic shift that deserves serious attention.
The most explosive moment came when Carlson asked Huckabee about the biblical text granting Israel land "from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates" — territory encompassing Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and parts of Saudi Arabia. Huckabee's response was chilling: "It would be fine if they took it all." He later tried to walk it back as hyperbole, but the damage was done. Egypt's Foreign Ministry swiftly condemned the statement as a "flagrant violation of international law." The Arab League, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation followed suit, with Saudi Arabia demanding that the Trump administration publicly disavow its own ambassador.
Huckabee's comment was not a slip. It was an honest articulation of what Christian Zionism has preached for decades: that a "Greater Israel" is a theological imperative tied to the Second Coming. A significant segment of the American political elite engages with Israel not through rational calculus but through eschatological conviction. When support for a foreign state becomes sacred duty, the space for criticism and accountability collapses entirely.
The interview also laid bare a bitter irony. Carlson's producers were detained at Ben Gurion Airport and interrogated about the interview's content, their political views, and their colleagues — while the U.S. Embassy refused to intervene. Every Palestinian who has endured the humiliation of Israeli checkpoints knows this experience intimately. Yet it became news only when it happened to a prominent white American.
For Egypt, the stakes could not be higher. Any American–Israeli confrontation with Iran would ignite the region, threaten the Suez Canal and Bab el-Mandeb, spike energy and food prices, and send new waves of refugees across already strained borders. Carlson's warning is not an internal American matter; it is a direct alarm for every Arab policymaker.
What should we take from this? First, that Israeli influence over American foreign policy is no longer only an Arab claim — it is now an American complaint from within the conservative establishment. Second, that Egypt's firm rejection of forced Palestinian displacement into Sinai was morally right and strategically essential, and must remain non-negotiable. Third, the growing fissure in Western opinion presents a diplomatic opportunity that the Arab world must actively seize.
But let us be clear-eyed. Even a critic as bold as Carlson is driven by American interests, not Arab rights. Justice will not be gifted to us from Washington. It never has been. It must be built with our own hands: through economic strength, unified political will, and a diplomacy that refuses to trade sovereignty for approval.
The wall of silence around Israel in America is cracking. It is up to us to ensure that what comes through serves not just American self-reflection, but Arab dignity and security.
*The writer is a Senior adviser to the Grand Mufti of Egypt.
Short link: