Since the “interview” of Mike Huckabee by Tucker Carlson, more information dropped about the Israeli official and the child molestation of the girl in Nevada. Tucker said the man “fled” to Israel, which was not true. In hindsight, a Nevada judge permitted him to return to Israel. Also, Israel doesn’t need to extradite him because he can appear via video according to the judge. Israel is not protecting him from American justice. Obviously, Tucker Carlson was using whatever he could to disparage Israel and Huckabee, including his complaints about his treatment at the Ben Gurion airport, which is still in question.
I would call Carlson a defamatory incompetent. He came into the interview loaded with unsubstantiated accusations to smear Huckabee and Israel especially for short term effect. First were critical inaccuracies about the details of the arrest of the Israeli official in Nevada. He also was wrong about Isaac Herzog, the president of Israel, about visiting Epstein island and his Epstein connections. It seems to be the wrong Herzog in the Epstein document. On Jonathan Pollard, it is not a proven fact either that Israel passed stolen secrets to the Soviet Union, and it’s definitely in question whether Pollard was worse than other historical traitors.
Anthony Aguilar
In addition, Huckabee challenged Carlson for his promotion of Anthony Aguilar, who had claimed he witnessed Israeli soldiers kill a five year old boy in Gaza. Huckabee stated that he personally helped coordinate a covert mission involving four countries to extract the boy and his mother from Gaza less than a week after the alleged “murder.” He explained the operation was kept secret because Hamas would have likely killed the child to validate the false narrative.
In other words, Aguilar did more to threaten the five year old’s life than the Israeli Defense Force or the United States military contractors. Because of his stunt with the boy, it required much more to save him later. And then Aguilar kept telling the lie that he watched him killed, especially used by Carlson for sinister purposes against Israel and Israel supporters in the United States. Huckabee criticized Carlson for continuing to treat the claim as plausible despite evidence to the contrary. Carlson’s reaction to the unmasking of the lie was not one that showed he was mainly an agent of truth.
Two Main Carlson Arguments Against Christian Zionism
Halfway through, Carlson began to grill Huckabee on the Christian Zionism question, and Carlson never affirmed support for Israel even or ever having a homeland. He also showed incredible either ignorance or sheer evil in his line of questioning of Huckabee. His first line of attack was on the scriptural support for Israel having its land, especially since the boundaries in Genesis 15:18-21 are much larger than what Israel possesses right now. A second argument for Carlson confronted whether the Jews of Israel were in fact Jews and, therefore, deserving of the land based upon their bloodline.
Carlson did more than one thing on his question of Jewish identity for the present inhabitants of the land of Israel. One, he was saying essentially that they aren’t provably the descendants of Abraham. Two, if they in fact were truly in Abraham’s line, then Huckabee should do that with everyone who had a native claim to the land, focusing on the Irish and then the people who built Stonehenge. Third, since the United States is a Christian nation, Huckabee and the United States should show far greater concern for Christians, who have as much or equal right to the land according to his viewpoint.
How Do We Know the Professing Jews of Today Are Abraham’s Descendants?
More and more, because of the work of an especially influential few anti-Israel or antisemite leaders in the United States and abroad, a growing number in the world question the veracity of Jewish identity. Tucker asks, “How do we know it’s the same people?” The obvious implication of this is that the Jews don’t deserve nor should they own the land. This is definitely the opposite of Christian Zionism, but it’s even worse than that. Carlson is saying that the Jews in the land of Israel aren’t Jews and they’re just making this up in order to have that land.
Huckabee gave some arguments for Jews in Israel, but in general he wasn’t prepared for this question. In Israel, however, the Jews have done a lot of work proving their identity in numerous ways. As this relates to Huckabee and the United States, this is a biblical issue, because it would show that they are the same line of people who came from Abraham and entitled to the blessings that God promised those people. This is one way Carlson wanted to debunk that scriptural point. Yet, if no one in Israel is demonstrably a Jew, what does that say of God’s promise to Israel? Carlson had nothing to say on that.
A Biblical Promise to Israel and Not Anyone Else
In fact, the Irish or the British don’t have to prove that they deserve their land, because no one questions it. The question for Israel centers on a biblical position. It says, God gave them the land based upon scripture. Ireland and England won’t find themselves in the Bible with promises to them of a particular land. This makes Carlson’s illustration, I would say, a stupid one. It was an awful argument, but the point was that Huckabee should give equal time to these European progenitors of his people in the United States and defend their rights, instead of being so pro-Israel.
What could Huckabee say to Carlson? He could remind him of the Abrahamic covenant, so how important that is to the present and future blessing of the United States. This is also Christian. Eighty million Christians in the United States connect themselves to this viewpoint. These are also the people to whom Carlson apologized for saying he hated them more than anyone else. He was having a bad day, he said, and popped off in anger. After this apology, he still blamed evangelical preachers for provoking his anger. So, it was really their fault still after all that he vehemently expressed this hatred.
Overall Jewish Identity Arguments
Jewish Bloodline?
The idea that modern Jews have no biological connection to the ancient Israelites is scientifically incorrect. Dozens of peer-reviewed genetic studies (from institutions like NYU and Hebrew University) have shown that Jewish populations worldwide—whether Ashkenazi, Sephardic, or Mizrahi—share a clear genetic signature that traces back to the Levant (the Middle East). DNA studies of the Y-chromosome show that most Jewish men share common ancestors with other Levantine groups, such as Palestinians, Druze, and Lebanese.
A common version of the “no bloodline” argument claims Ashkenazi Jews are actually descended from the Khazars (a Turkic people). Geneticists have largely debunked this, finding that while some minor admixture occurred, the core DNA remains Middle Eastern. Since Carlson’s interview with Huckabee, many have made the argument against his point, including this one.
Geneticists have identified specific markers, passed from father to son, which act as a biological time capsule.
- The Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH): This is a specific DNA signature found in a high percentage of Jewish men who self-identify as Cohanim (priests).
- The Findings: Studies show this signature is shared by both Ashkenazi (European) and Sephardic (Middle Eastern/North African) Cohanim.
- The Significance: Because these two groups were separated for over 1,000 years, the fact that they share this unique marker suggests they both descend from a common ancestral pool in the Levant that predates the Diaspora.
- J-P58 Haplogroup: This specific genetic branch is prevalent among Jewish populations and is natively Near Eastern. It is estimated to have diverged roughly 3,000 years ago, aligning with the biblical and historical timeline of the early Israelites.
The “Khazar Myth” vs. Reality
The argument that Jews are “descendants of the Khazars” (a Turkic tribe that converted in the 8th century) is often used to claim Ashkenazi Jews have no blood link to Abraham.
- Scientific Correction: Modern genomic mapping shows that while there may have been some small-scale conversion or admixture, the vast majority of the Ashkenazi genome (roughly 50–70%) is a mix of Levantine (Middle Eastern) and Southern European (Italian/Greek) DNA.
- The Verdict: The “Khazar” contribution is genetically negligible. Ashkenazi Jews are essentially a Middle Eastern population that drifted into Europe and picked up local DNA along the way, but never lost their original Levantine core.
Continuity of Presence
The “bloodline” argument implies that Jews disappeared from the land and were replaced. In reality, there has been a continuous Jewish presence in the Land of Israel for over 3,000 years. While the majority were exiled by the Romans in 70 AD and 132 AD, small communities remained in cities like Jerusalem, Tiberias, and Safed through every subsequent empire (Byzantine, Arab, Crusader, and Ottoman). Indigenous status isn’t usually lost just because a majority of a population is forced out; it is defined by the origins of the culture, language, and ancestral roots.
Archaeological Proof of Identity
If modern Jews were purely “converts” with no link to the land, we would expect a break in the archaeological record of Jewish-specific customs. Instead, we see remarkable continuity.
- Ritual Baths (Mikva’ot): Archaeologists have found hundreds of mikva’ot (stepped pools for ritual purity) dating from the Second Temple period (roughly BC 530 – 70 AD). These are unique to Jewish settlements and have been found in places like Hebron, Jerusalem, and Galilee.
- The “Purity” Economy: Excavations on Mount Scopus recently revealed 2,000-year-old workshops for stone vessels. Under ancient Jewish law, stone (unlike pottery) could not become ritually impure. This “purity culture” is a distinct marker of the Jewish people in Judea during the Roman era.
- The Arch of Titus: Located in Rome, this 1st-century monument depicts Roman soldiers carrying away the Menorah and other treasures from the Temple in Jerusalem. It serves as a physical “receipt” of the expulsion of the Jewish people from their capital.
Cultural and Legal Identity
From a sociological perspective, “Judean” (Jew) is an ethno-religious identity. Hebrew is the only Canaanite language still spoken today. The religious laws and customs practiced by modern Jews are directly evolved from the Second Temple period. The “Right to Self-Determination” for indigenous peoples (as recognized by the UN) is based on historical and cultural ties, not just a “purity test” of blood. In no other modern conflict do we require a 100% DNA match to ancestors from 2,000 years ago to validate a group’s identity.
The “Linguistic DNA” Argument
Proponents of this view argue that a language is the “soul” of a people. If the “bloodline” is questioned, the “word-line” is not.
- Unique Continuity: Hebrew is the only Canaanite language still spoken today. Other ancient regional languages—like Phoenician, Moabite, or Edomite—are extinct.
- The Dead Sea Scrolls: When a modern Israeli teenager looks at the Dead Sea Scrolls (written 2,000 years ago), they can recognize a significant portion of the vocabulary and grammar. This “frozen” state of the language during the Diaspora is used to prove that the Jewish people never truly “left” their culture, even if they were physically removed from the soil.
The Hebrew language and the written text of the Old Testament followed the Jews wherever they went. In the Diaspora of the Jewish people all over the world, major well-known cities had their Jewish quarters with synagogues who had their copy of the Hebrew Bible. Jerome translated his Latin Old Testament from a proto-Masoretic Hebrew text between 382 and 405 AD. Evidence includes continuous composition of religious poetry (piyyutim), rabbinic commentaries, correspondence, and legal contracts (responsa) among Jewish communities globally, alongside the use of the Masoretic text for biblical study.
Even when Aramaic became the dominant spoken language, Jews continued to pray and read the Torah in Hebrew, ensuring the language remained known. From childhood, Jewish males were taught to read and study holy texts in Hebrew, ensuring the language was always known to a significant portion of the population.
Toponymy: The Map of the Land
One of the strongest arguments used by the Israeli state is that the names of the land are Hebrew.
- Biblical Geography: Modern Israeli cities and sites—such as Jerusalem (Yerushalayim), Hebron (Hevron), Bethlehem (Beit Lechem), and Carmel—retain their original Hebrew names or Hebrew-derived roots.
- The “Evidence in the Soil”: Archaeologists consistently find seals (bullae), coins, and inscriptions in ancient Hebrew throughout the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Jerusalem.
- The Legal Claim: From a nationalist perspective, the fact that the geography of the land “speaks” Hebrew is used to argue that the Jewish people are the “rightful tenants” returning to a home they never stopped naming.
The Biblical Perspective
If the argument is being made from a religious/biblical standpoint (“The line of Abraham”), it’s worth noting:
- The Bible itself describes “The Mixed Multitude” leaving Egypt and various people joining the Israelites throughout history (like Ruth the Moabite).
- In Jewish law (Halakha), a person who joins the nation through conversion is considered a full descendant of Abraham and Sarah. The “bloodline” was never meant to be a closed biological loop, but a national family.
The Biblical Narrative Itself for the Jews
When someone reads the Bible, he gets a very strong narrative or story for the Jews in the land of Israel. In many ways, one could argue this for the theme of the entire Bible, especially related to land. Let me tell you the story, so that you can see. First, in Genesis 11 God through Moses reports the line of Shem, one of Noah’s sons, which leads to Abram in particular in Genesis 12, for whom He makes a covenant. This is the man and then family, the Messianic lineage, through which God would save the world. The rest of Genesis is the story of this family and its line through various Patriarchs.
The Old Testament story includes the suffering of Israel and the Jewish people, especially at the end of Daniel, culminating with the prophet Malachi and a four hundred year silent period starting in BC 400. This did not preclude the land promise. The New Testament, written by Jewish Christians, treated Israel with a future that matches the Old Testament trajectory. When Jewish Jesus teaches His Jewish disciples in Acts 1, He doesn’t deny a future kingdom for the Jews. It was not their time to know when it was, not that it wouldn’t occur. The Apostle Paul guaranteed the future salvation of Israel in line with the Old Testament.
More to Come