Risk and Extortion XLI: Naz Shah vs Mike Huckabee

In August 2014, at the height of the Gaza conflict – how much more evidence do we need that it did not start of the 7th of October 2023? – then-private individual Naz Shah shared a Facebook graphic showing the outline of Israel superimposed on a map of the United States. The post was captioned “Solution for Israel‑Palestine conflict – relocate Israel into United States”, with Shah adding her own comment: “problem solved” en.wikipedia.org+12bbc.com+12bbc.com+12.

The graphic suggested:

• Israel becoming a 51st U.S. state.
• Americans would “welcome Israelis with open arms.”
• Relocation costs would be less than three years of U.S. defense spending.
• Palestinians would regain their land.
• Resulting global benefits like lower oil prices and peace

The post resurfaced publicly in April 2016, highlighted by the political blog Guido Fawkes forward.com+9bbc.com+9timesofisrael.com+9. Shah, who by then was MP for Bradford West and Parliamentary Private Secretary to Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, resigned from that role immediately telegraph.co.uk+12bbc.com+12en.wikipedia.org+12. She was suspended from the Labour Party by leader Jeremy Corbyn, pending investigation.

Yesterday, the BBC published an interview with the USA ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, where he suggested that “Muslim countries should give up land for Palestinian State”. Huckabee explicitly dismissed the idea of establishing a Palestinian state in the West Bank (the BBC shamelessly invoked the Kahanist ambitions of a Greater Isreal by already renaming these illegally occupied territories “Judea and Samaria”), citing cultural and practical barriers. He instead proposed that Islamic nations with far more land could host a Palestinian state—even going so far as to cite a “644 times” comparison in total landmass relative to Israel. His statements represent a departure from the U.S.’s historic two-state policy and have sparked debate and concern among international partners.

I wonder if anyone will have the courage draw a parallell between these two remarks? The BBC almost certainly will not.

Let me add a few facts on the person of Mike Huckabee: he was named among the most corrupt U.S. politicians by Judicial Watch — citing multiple ethics complaints, campaign finance irregularities, and deletion of state computer files. After leaving his office as Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee ordered the destruction of 83 hard drives and 4 servers from state agencies—officially to protect privacy. Critics argued he was erasing documentation of potentially embarrassing or incriminating information. Additionally, following revelations that Josh Duggar had sexually molested minors, Huckabee publicly rallied in support of the Duggar family, describing them as “good people” and urging forgiveness—critics saw this as downplaying sexual abuse. Huckabee is thus not merely a shady figure, he also supports peadophiles. It raises the question why exactly he has been hand-picked by Donald Trump to represent the USA in Israel. As with many men surrounding Trump, he is severely compromised.

When we compare this to Naz Shah, it becomes clear that she is in a completely different league. She has never been accused of corruption. Naz Shah is a powerful and resilient public figure: overcoming early life trauma, she pushed from grassroots activism into Parliament. Her journey includes notable policy roles, personal challenges, and a significant social media scandal. Today, she remains a vocal advocate for equality, community cohesion, and Palestinian rights in the Commons.