Newsletters
A report by Israeli media has triggered a political stir by suggesting that U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee held meetings with ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) lawmakers to help stabilize Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.
The discussions reportedly focused on the controversial military draft exemption for the Haredi community, a topic that has threatened to fracture the governing coalition.
According to Channel 13, Huckabee allegedly told senior Haredi leaders that maintaining government stability was essential for addressing regional threats, particularly from Iran. He was quoted as saying that early elections would be a strategic mistake at a time of heightened security challenges.
However, Huckabee has publicly denied the report, stating that he did not attempt to influence Israeli lawmakers or interfere in internal political matters. In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Huckabee emphasized that choosing a government is the sole responsibility of the Israeli public. “There has been no attempt to influence Haredi Knesset members regarding a decision to dissolve the government,” he wrote.
https://x.com/USAmbIsrael/status/1932394309459791904
In his online statement, Huckabee acknowledged he was asked how the US might react to a government collapse. His response, he said, reflected a broader American concern about perceived instability during an ongoing conflict and amid threats from Iranian proxies and a potential nuclear escalation.
“I emphatically stated it was our responsibility to work with the government that Israelis chose,” Huckabee asserted. He added that he made no recommendations or policy suggestions, aside from referencing the historical example of King Solomon as a figure known for resolving complex disputes. “Reports that go beyond that are either misleading or untrue,” he concluded.
Huckabee’s presence at a separate meeting with war cabinet member Benny Gantz was also noted, where the focus was on securing a hostage release deal and reinforcing efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
The ambassador’s reported remarks, particularly the emphasis on government continuity as crucial for addressing the Iranian threat, have sparked renewed scrutiny over the extent of American influence in Israeli domestic affairs. While the US-Israel alliance is often described as unshakable, it also carries criticism over perceived imbalances—namely, Washington's annual $3.8 billion in military aid and diplomatic backing.
Opposition leader Yair Lapid responded cautiously to the news, expressing hope that the reports of interference were inaccurate.
“Since I do not doubt that Ambassador Huckabee respects Israel’s independence and its democracy, I hope and believe that the reports that he is interfering in Israel’s internal politics and trying to help Netanyahu (deal with) the ultra-Orthodox in the military draft law crisis are not true. Israel is not a protectorate,” Lapid wrote on X.
This is not the first time US involvement in Israeli politics has drawn attention. During Benjamin Netanyahu’s first term as prime minister in the late 1990s, he faced friction with then-U.S. President Bill Clinton, especially during negotiations over the Hebron and Wye River agreements.
Clinton reportedly supported Netanyahu’s political rival, Ehud Barak, and was accused of coordinating with Barak’s campaign. Barak ultimately defeated Netanyahu in the 1999 elections. In an earlier episode, President George H.W. Bush’s administration clashed with the Israeli government over settlement expansion.
Secretary of State James Baker made a pointed public comment encouraging Israelis to call a hotline for advice on halting settlements, which many in Israel saw as overt political pressure. Soon after, the Labor Party’s Yitzhak Rabin defeated Yitzhak Shamir and signed the Oslo Accords.
Despite widespread debate, capitalizing on this moment may depend as much on the Israeli opposition as it does on the governing coalition.
During the Obama administration’s diplomatic push for the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), Netanyahu famously bypassed the White House by speaking to the US Congress at the invitation of Republicans—an unprecedented move that deepened partisan divides around Israel policy in Washington.
Given this context, Lapid’s recent “protectorate” remark could mark the beginning of a broader repositioning by the opposition. To challenge Netanyahu effectively, however, critics argue that opposition leaders must move beyond rhetorical concerns and present coherent alternatives on both domestic and foreign policy fronts.
The ambassador has previously signaled a preference for non-interference. In an interview just two weeks ago with Israeli television, Huckabee remarked that “the U.S. won’t tell Israel how to fight its wars.” His latest statements continue that line, stressing that he answered a question about potential U.S. perception rather than issuing guidance on Israeli political decisions.
While questions remain over the extent and nature of the ambassador’s meetings, Huckabee insists that his comments were neither coordinated by Washington nor intended to shape internal Israeli affairs.
For now, the situation reflects both the sensitivity of the military draft issue and the complex balancing act faced by a key American envoy in a country navigating war, coalition instability, and deep political divides.
2 min read
2 min read
3 min read
