'Muslim countries have 644 times amount of land controlled by Israel': US ambassador Huckabee on two-state solution; slams allies UK, Australia
US ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee (Image: X)
US ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee suggested "Muslim countries" should give up some of their land to create a future Palestinian state.
Speaking to the BBC, Huckabee said Muslim countries have 644 times more land than Israel.
"So maybe, if there is such a desire for the Palestinian state, there would be someone who would say, we'd like to host it,' he said.
Huckabee further called the idea of a two-state solution, where Israel and a future Palestinian state would exist side by side, 'an aspirational goal.' This idea is widely supported internationally, including by past US governments.
The plan imagines a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
But in a different interview with Bloomberg, Huckabee said the US was no longer working toward creating an independent Palestinian state.
Afterward, state department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce said that Huckabee was speaking for himself, and that the president sets US policy in the Middle East.
When asked if the US now opposes a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Huckabee said,: "I wouldn't say there can never be, what I would say is that a culture would have to change.'
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Milana, 38, Shows Her Huge Size In New Photos.
Paperela
Undo
"Right now the culture is that it's OK to target Jews and kill them and you're rewarded for it. That has to change.'
Israel itself rejects the two-state solution. It says any final agreement must come through talks with Palestinians, and that statehood cannot be a precondition.
Huckabee has long supported the idea of a 'greater Israel,' meaning permanent Israeli control of the occupied Palestinian territories. He uses the biblical term 'Judea and Samaria' to refer to the West Bank.
The ambassador also strongly criticised US allies, including the UK and Australia, for placing sanctions on two far-right Israeli ministers. The sanctions were issued over the ministers' "repeated incitements of violence against Palestinian communities" in the occupied West Bank.
He said, 'I have not yet heard a good reason for why these two elected ministers have been sanctioned by countries that ought to respect the country's sovereignty and recognise that they have not conducted any criminal activity.'
The war in Gaza started in October 2023, after Hamas attacked Israel, killing around 1,200 people and taking about 251 hostages. There are still 56 hostages being held in Gaza, and at least 20 are believed to be alive.
Since the war began, at least 54,927 Palestinians have been killed, according to Gaza's Hamas-run health ministry. The UN says more than a quarter of those killed were children.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
40 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump's hand bruise becomes internet obsession — why are these marks showing up more frequently?
People noticed another big bruise on Donald Trump's right hand again, it's showing up often now. The bruise was first seen in Spring 2024, during Trump's court case with Stormy Daniels in Manhattan, as per reports. In February, the bruise looked worse after a busy schedule of handshakes following his meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron. In April, it showed up again when Trump held a football at a Commander-in-Chief Trophy ceremony in Washington, D.C., according to the report by Daily Beast. Most recently, the bruise was visible at Fort Bragg military base, during a speech about the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army. During that White House speech, cameras caught a brownish patch under his knuckles when he raised his hand. according to a reports Play Video Pause Skip Backward Skip Forward Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration 0:00 Loaded : 0% 0:00 Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 1x Playback Rate Chapters Chapters Descriptions descriptions off , selected Captions captions settings , opens captions settings dialog captions off , selected Audio Track default , selected Picture-in-Picture Fullscreen This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Text Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Caption Area Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Drop shadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like If You Eat Ginger Everyday for 1 Month This is What Happens Tips and Tricks Undo While ranting about Joe Biden in the podcast, the bruise was seen again, this time it looked like makeup was used to cover it. In her article, Miranda Devine wrote that Trump gets bruises from hard handshakes from supporters and gives them back warmly, even though he's a 'reformed germaphobe', as per reports. White House blamed handshakes Dr. Stuart Fischer, a doctor from New York, said in February that handshakes could cause bruising, especially at Trump's age. Dr. Fischer also said it might be Osteoarthritis, which affects joints and bones, and Trump's old age, 78, is a factor too, as per the report by Daily Mail. Live Events Back in February, the White House said excessive handshaking was the reason behind the hand bruise. Karoline Leavitt, Trump's press secretary, told NBC News that the bruises were a result of 'constantly working and shaking hands all day'. Trump himself told Time magazine that the bruises come from 'shaking hands with thousands of people' After the bruise photos went viral again, people online questioned Trump's health, and the White House has not commented yet, as stated by the report by Daily Beast. FAQs Q1. Why does Donald Trump have a bruise on his hand? It may be from too many handshakes or age-related health problems. Q2. Is Trump's hand bruise a sign of poor health? Doctors say it could be normal for his age, but it might also point to joint or blood issues.
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Donald Trump is battling America's elite universities—and winning
Editor's note: On April 14th the Trump administration froze $2.2bn of federal funds for Harvard University after the Ivy League college became the first institution to reject policy changes it had demanded. This was not a hidden plot, but an open plan. In the eyes of the right, America's elite universities are guilty of a litany of sins: they propagate illiberal, left-wing ideas; they exclude or censor those who question woke views; they discriminate against the majority in the name of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI); they allow antisemitism to fester. Before Donald Trump's second term as president began, conservative activists had laid out in considerable detail the retribution they were preparing to exact for these misdeeds. The retribution is now under way. Mr Trump's administration has withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants from prestigious schools, mostly in the Ivy League, and threatened to yank billions more. It has rescinded visas for students who participated in pro-Palestinian protests last year, in some cases by having plainclothes officers grab them on the street and push them into unmarked cars. It has capped overhead costs for scientific research in ways that have already led to thousands of lost jobs. Other levers, over access to federal student loans, for instance, have not even been pulled yet. Every university president in America dreads the arrival of 'the letter' from the administration. The first was sent to Columbia University on March 13th, shortly after $400m of grants were withheld. To win the money back, the letter demanded that Columbia expel certain students who participated in protests, reform its admissions policies and place its Middle Eastern studies department into 'academic receivership'. The university capitulated to all the demands. Its president, herself a stand-in, resigned a week later. 'The Columbia opening salvo was incredible to me,' says Chris Rufo, a prominent culture warrior. 'It's almost unbelievable how weak, feckless, and pathetic these folks have been.' More shakedowns have followed. On March 19th Christopher Eisgruber, the president of Princeton University, wrote in the Atlantic that the Trump administration's actions presented 'the greatest threat to the American universities since the Red Scare of the 1950s'. That may be an understatement: Joseph McCarthy, who hounded suspected communists, was a mere senator, without the weight of the federal government behind him. In late March the federal government informed Princeton that it was suspending research grants worth $210m, ostensibly because of antisemitism. On April 3rd a letter from the government arrived at Harvard threatening $9bn-worth of grants unless the university scrapped its DEI programmes and reformed 'departments that fuel antisemitic harassment'. This week $1bn in funding for Cornell and $790m for Northwestern was frozen. Disdain for elite universities is not new to the American right. Ronald Reagan won the governorship of California in 1966 by pledging 'to clean up the mess at Berkeley' and clear out the 'beatniks, radicals and filthy speech advocates' who had 'brought such shame' to the flagship state university. But the long-running antagonism has gradually intensified as education has become more of a dividing line in American politics, with university graduates tending ever more strongly to vote Democratic. In the 1970s there were fewer than two academics who described themselves as liberal for every conservative. Four decades later the ratio was six to one. Humanities faculties, in particular, have championed ideas unpopular with ordinary voters: that American society is structurally racist, for example, or that everyone has a 'gender identity' unrelated to their sex. Trust in universities has dropped precipitously over the past decade. In 2015 nearly 60% of respondents told Gallup, a pollster, that they had a great deal of confidence in higher education. That has since fallen to 36%, almost the same proportion as say they have 'very little' or 'no confidence'. Republicans are especially critical; only 20% of them express faith in universities, compared with 56% of Democrats. 'The isolation of the academy writ large, from the whole of society, is at the root of a lot of these problems,' says Greg Weiner, the president of Assumption University. Loud and lengthy protests against Israel's war in Gaza over the past 18 months have further cemented the idea that campuses are out of kilter with mainstream opinion—and given the right an opportunity to attack universities for not doing enough to make Jewish students and faculty feel safe. The administration has been using supposed antisemitism as grounds to demand reforms. 'In some cases, these are not just unconstitutional demands, but there is also no statutory authority for them,' says Jameel Jaffer, a professor of law and journalism at Columbia University. Mr Jaffer points out that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which the administration has invoked on behalf of Jewish students and faculty, does allow for sanctions—but only after a formal investigation. Even then, 'The remedial measures have to be limited to the programme found to be in violation.' The withdrawal of grants could also be challenged. Universities might argue that the conditions the administration is imposing for their restoration amount to unconstitutional coercion. In 1967 in Keyishian v Board of Regents, the Supreme Court found that academic freedom is 'a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom'. The deportation of foreign students involved in protests is of dubious legality, too. In Bridges v Wixon in 1945 the Supreme Court affirmed, 'Freedom of speech and of the press is accorded aliens residing in this country.' The Trump administration has explicitly rejected this idea. In its deportation proceedings against Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian graduate student at Columbia involved in protests against the war in Gaza, the administration is citing a seldom-used law allowing the secretary of state to cancel visas for migrants whose continued presence could yield 'potentially serious adverse foreign-policy consequences'. The Supreme Court has never opined on this law, but in 1996 in Massieu v Reno, a federal district judge struck it down as unconstitutional. As it happened, the judge in question was Maryanne Trump Barry, the late sister of Mr Trump. It seems unlikely that even the Supreme Court, with its conservative supermajority, would endorse all the Trump administration's attacks on universities, if asked. Yet most of the victims seem more inclined to capitulate than litigate. That may be because universities are worried that even if they prevail in one instance, the administration will simply find other ways to punish and coerce them. Moreover, judicial relief comes only slowly; there would be lots of financial difficulties during the delay. Talented faculty might decamp to other institutions with fewer government headaches. By the same token, although many of the universities affected are enormously wealthy (see chart), the federal government can impose costs in so many ways that most see no hope of simply enduring the financial pressure. Instead, universities, whether recipients of letters or not, are disavowing the policies the right so dislikes, academic freedom notwithstanding. The University of Michigan has shuttered its DEI office, on which it had lavished $250m over the past decade. The University of California, which pioneered the requirement that prospective hires provide 'diversity statements' (in effect, professions of support for DEI), recently dropped them. 'This is the Vichy moment. It's a classic collaborationist dilemma,' says Michael Roth, the president of Wesleyan University, an as-yet-untargeted institution. 'You can have preserved your school but you live in a sea of authoritarianism.' Bringing universities to heel from 'a position of savage strength', as Mr Rufo puts it, may yield only superficial results. Because Mr Trump's approach is so hostile and extreme, it may actually discourage universities from honestly assessing how they went wrong and correcting course. 'None of this will make any difference in the long run unless it is accompanied by a full accounting of what has happened for the last two decades in higher education in America,' says Anthony Kronman, a former dean of Yale Law School. There is also little logic in the government's decision to switch off funding for science in order to punish ideas that emanated from humanities departments. Another recent decision, to cap the share of research grants that can be spent on overheads, will diminish the amount of scientific research conducted at all American universities, not just the elite ones. So will the gutting of the National Institutes of Health, which dispense huge amounts of funding for medical research. The administration's general antipathy towards immigrants will presumably also take a toll. 'Our universities are the best in the world. We drain the world of human capital. It's the goose that lays the golden egg,' says Nicholas Christakis, a professor at Yale. Mr Rufo is undaunted. He hints that the campaign against woke academics is only in its infancy. Certainly, more universities will come under attack and more means of coercion will be tested. There is talk in conservative circles of demanding the sacking of particular professors. Mr Rufo gives short shrift to talk about the sanctity of academic freedom. 'Freedom is the wrong lens to analyse the problem,' he says. 'The Columbia post-colonial studies faculty are not engaged in academic research. They're engaged in political activism. They're engaged in ideological mania. And in order to have academic freedom, you have to accept academic responsibility.' But even accepting the remedies Mr Trump is dispensing does not seem to have been enough in Columbia's case, at least. Although it has complied with the administration's demands, it still has not received the $400m that had been frozen. Correction (April 11th 2025): A previous version of this piece said that Eugene McCarthy was the senator who pursued suspected communists in the 1950s. In fact it was Joseph McCarthy. Sorry.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Pemmasani lays stone for Shaadi Khana at Prattipadu in Guntur district
The Union Minister of State for Rural Development and Communications, Pemmasani Chandra Sekhar, along with local MLA B. Ramanjaneyulu, laid the foundation stone for the construction of a Shaadi Khana at Prathipadu on Thursday. The facility is being built for the benefit of the Muslim community. Speaking at the event, the Minister lauded two families for making the project possible. He praised Nuthalapati Parameswara Rao and Prameela for donating land worth ₹1 crore for the facility. 'At a time when land prices are skyrocketing, donating such a valuable property for public welfare is truly commendable,' he said. He also acknowledged the contributions of Sudhanagunta Raghavendra Prasad and Kalyani, who, despite not being local residents, donated ₹4 crore to construct nine community halls across the Guntur parliamentary constituency, including the one in Prattipadu. The Shaadi Khana is being built at a cost of ₹45 lakh, consisting of a 2,000 hall with toilet facilities and guest arrangements. Criticising the previous YSRCP government, he alleged that no meaningful support or infrastructure was provided to the Muslim community in the last five years. 'Despite funds being available from the Centre under the Pradhan Mantri Jan Vikas Karyakram, the previous regime failed to provide matching funds, letting central aid lapse,' he stated. Plans for Guntur Mr. Sekhar also announced future development plans for Guntur, including a ₹30 crore radiotherapy equipment project for the government hospital, a ₹100 crore Ayurvedic hospital, and modernisation of the Guntur Channel. He assured that all ongoing public works would continue at the 2019 contract rates, without any escalation in cost.
