Pollard: Huckabee’s embrace of the ‘settler violence’ myth is dangerous

US Ambassador Mike Huckabee’s embrace of the settler violence narrative, and his meeting with Gadi Eisenkot, could turn a longtime defender of Jewish settlement into an unwitting ally of those seeking to undermine it..

By Jonathan Pollard

U.S. Ambassador Mike Huckabee’s recent meeting with opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot raises troubling questions about Washington’s approach to Judea and Samaria.

The two reportedly discussed the contentious issue of “settler violence,” a narrative that, in my view, is being used to undermine Jewish communities throughout our Biblical heartland.

For a conservative, G-d fearing ambassador whose longstanding support for Israel once inspired such confidence among Jewish nationalists, Huckabee’s willingness to give prominence to this deeply distorted narrative represents a profound disappointment.

The issue is not whether genuine acts of violence should be condemned, but whether those crimes are being used to justify a broader political campaign against Jewish settlement. That concern becomes especially significant when Huckabee discusses the issue with Eisenkot, whose political and security doctrines stand in sharp contrast to the principles the ambassador has traditionally championed.

The dangerous settler violence narrative

By adopting terminology widely employed by anti-settlement organizations, the U.S. Embassy risks lending American diplomatic credibility to a campaign that portrays Jewish communities as aggressors rather than as citizens facing persistent security threats.

More than half a million Jews live in Judea and Samaria, many in communities that have endured years of Palestinian shootings, rock attacks, firebombings, and attempted infiltrations.

Yet the international discussion increasingly focuses on incidents involving Jewish residents, while the organized campaign of Palestinian terrorism and incitement receives nowhere near the same attention.

Huckabee has condemned violent settlers as terrorists, while making clear that those responsible should not be confused with the broader Jewish population. But why has the ambassador made these incidents such a prominent diplomatic concern when Palestinian terrorist organizations continue their campaign against Jewish civilians and IDF soldiers?

The distinction between individual criminal acts and organized terrorism is fundamental, particularly when allegations against Jewish residents are used to advance demands for territorial concessions and restrictions on settlement.

The evidence Huckabee should examine

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of Huckabee’s approach is his apparent failure to give sufficient consideration to the research published by Regavim, the Israeli organization that has challenged the international narrative surrounding settler violence.

In its report, “False Flags and Real Agendas”, Regavim examined thousands of incidents recorded in United Nations data and questioned the methodology used to classify them as settler-related violence.

The organization argues that the figures include incidents involving Israeli security operations, Palestinians injured while carrying out alleged attacks, and other confrontations that cannot automatically be equated with unprovoked criminal violence by Jewish residents.

Regavim’s analysis does not establish that every allegation is false, nor does it eliminate the need to investigate genuine attacks against Palestinians. But it raises serious questions about whether the statistics used to portray Jewish communities as collectively violent distinguish criminal attacks from fundamentally different incidents.

An American ambassador should insist upon independently verified facts before lending the prestige of his office to accusations carrying such enormous political consequences.

Are there acts of violence committed by Jews in the Territories? Of course there are, and those responsible for genuine criminal offenses should be held accountable.

But these incidents cannot be examined honestly without acknowledging the continuing Palestinian campaign of shootings, rock attacks, firebombings, car rammings, and stabbings directed against Jewish civilians.

Nor should Palestinian political institutions escape scrutiny for incitement while Jewish communities are collectively judged by the actions of a small minority.

Why Huckabee’s meeting with Eisenkot matters

What makes Huckabee’s meeting with Eisenkot particularly troubling is that the two have publicly expressed similar concerns about settler violence, despite their very different political backgrounds.

Huckabee has condemned attacks by extremist settlers, while Eisenkot has also criticized such violence and warned about its consequences for Israeli security.

Their reported discussion raises a question that goes beyond an ordinary diplomatic meeting: Could the ambassador’s increasing emphasis on settler violence lend credibility to the broader political arguments advanced by figures such as Eisenkot?

Eisenkot has criticized elements of the settlement movement and warned against activities that, in his view, could create irreversible territorial realities.

His broader security philosophy places considerable emphasis on preserving Palestinian governing institutions and limiting unilateral Israeli actions in Judea and Samaria.

For those of us who regard Jewish communities in these territories as indispensable to Israel’s national security, Eisenkot’s approach raises serious concerns about the concessions that might eventually be demanded in the name of diplomatic stability.

An American ambassador is certainly entitled to meet opposition politicians, and Huckabee has rejected suggestions that the encounter was secret or politically motivated.

Nor is there evidence that he endorsed Eisenkot’s positions or agreed to any political initiative.

Nevertheless, the meeting raises a legitimate concern about whether Huckabee’s public statements could inadvertently strengthen arguments for restricting Jewish settlement, despite his longstanding opposition to such policies.

A troubling signal before the elections

The timing of the meeting adds another dimension to this controversy.

With Israel approaching its October 27 Knesset elections, Eisenkot is positioning himself as a major political challenger to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

At approximately the same time, a separately scheduled meeting between Huckabee and Netanyahu was reportedly canceled, although the ambassador explained that it was a social engagement that would be rescheduled.

There is no established evidence connecting the cancellation to the Eisenkot meeting, and Huckabee has denied suggestions that Washington is attempting to manipulate Israel’s elections.

Nevertheless, diplomatic appearances matter, particularly when an ambassador meets a leading opposition figure during the final days of an election campaign to discuss an issue deeply entangled in Israel’s domestic political struggle.

President Donald Trump’s public endorsement of Netanyahu makes the situation even more peculiar.

While the president has openly expressed support for the prime minister, his ambassador has been discussing the future of Judea and Samaria with a political rival whose security philosophy differs sharply from that of Israel’s governing coalition.

The issue is not whether Huckabee has the right to hold such meetings, but whether his diplomatic approach risks lending credibility to positions he has spent years opposing.

Eisenkot’s security doctrine deserves scrutiny

My concerns about Eisenkot extend well beyond his attitude toward Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.

They involve the strategic assumptions that guided Israel’s security establishment before October 7, particularly the belief that preserving Palestinian governing institutions necessarily contributes to Israeli security.

But preserving the Palestinian Authority cannot be an end in itself when its institutions have been accused of tolerating incitement, individual members of its security forces have participated in terrorist attacks, and hostile armed organizations continue expanding their influence.

What possible justification is there for treating the continued existence of the PA’s governing apparatus as a strategic necessity while regarding the expansion of Jewish communities as a problem requiring international intervention?

These are the questions Huckabee should be raising with Eisenkot, rather than allowing allegations of settler violence to overshadow the fundamental security challenges confronting Israel.

Huckabee owes Israel an explanation

Of course, Ambassador Huckabee may argue that his statements and diplomatic activities simply reflect instructions received from Washington.

But such an explanation would hardly be satisfactory coming from a man whose outspoken religious convictions and longstanding support for Jewish settlement have distinguished him from the conventional diplomatic establishment.

Huckabee has repeatedly affirmed the Biblical connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel. Those convictions created legitimate expectations among his supporters that he would challenge attempts to delegitimize their presence in Judea and Samaria.

If Washington is instructing him to adopt policies that contradict those convictions, he should make his objections known. If his statements reflect his own assessment, he owes the Jewish communities affected by them a more convincing explanation.

He should begin by examining Regavim’s findings, distinguishing genuine criminal offenses from disputed allegations, and recognizing the fundamental difference between individual wrongdoing and organized Palestinian terrorism.

He should also make clear that his discussions with Eisenkot do not signify American support for territorial concessions or political initiatives that could compromise the security of Jewish communities.

We expected more

Honestly, we expected more from Ambassador Huckabee.

His increasingly prominent condemnation of settler violence, followed by his discussion of that very issue with Gadi Eisenkot, raises troubling questions about whether his longstanding convictions are being subordinated to the assumptions of the diplomatic establishment.

The ambassador’s condemnation of genuine criminal violence is not the issue. The danger lies in allowing those crimes to become the justification for a much broader campaign against Jewish communities whose rights he has spent years defending.

For a man who has spoken so forcefully about the Jewish people’s right to their ancestral homeland, lending credibility to such a campaign would represent a profound betrayal of the very principles he has spent his public life championing.