In an extraordinary diplomatic broadside, the US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, has suggested that Britain would have lost the Second World War had Sir Keir Starmer been its prime minister at the time.
The provocative remarks, posted on social media, came in response to the British prime minister’s criticism of Israel’s proposed military takeover of Gaza City, escalating tensions between the two nations and drawing sharp attention to Starmer’s foreign policy stance.
Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor known for his outspoken views, took to X on Friday to lambast Starmer’s call for Israel to reconsider its plans to expand its offensive in Gaza.
Reposting a statement from the prime minister, who had described Israel’s strategy as “wrong” and urged an immediate rethink, Huckabee delivered a stinging rebuke. “So Israel is expected to surrender to Hamas & feed them even though Israeli hostages are being starved?” he wrote.
“Did the UK surrender to Nazis and drop food to them? … If you had been PM then UK would be speaking German!”
The ambassador’s comments invoked the spectre of Britain’s wartime resolve under Winston Churchill, implying that Starmer’s approach lacked the necessary steel to confront existential threats.
In a further jab, Huckabee referenced the Allied bombing of Dresden in February 1945, when British and American forces unleashed 4,000 tons of explosives on the eastern German city over two days, killing an estimated 25,000 to 35,000 civilians.
“Ever heard of Dresden, PM Starmer? That wasn’t food you dropped,” he wrote, drawing a parallel between the decisive, if controversial, wartime tactics and Israel’s current military calculations. Downing Street declined to engage directly with Huckabee’s remarks. A No 10 spokesperson said only: “We have nothing to add to the prime minister’s comments on Gaza.”
Starmer, speaking earlier this week, had condemned Israel’s planned takeover of Gaza City as a dangerous escalation, urging restraint and a return to diplomatic efforts to secure the release of hostages held by Hamas. His intervention came amid growing international concern over the humanitarian toll of Israel’s operations in the region, with reports of widespread displacement and civilian casualties.
Huckabee’s intervention has sparked a firestorm of debate in both diplomatic and political circles. Critics of the ambassador argue that his comments represent an unacceptable breach of protocol, with one senior Labour MP describing them as “crass and inflammatory.” The MP, speaking on condition of anonymity, added: “To drag the Second World War into this is not only disrespectful to Britain’s history but dangerously reductive. The situation in Gaza is complex and requires nuance, not cheap shots.”
Others, however, see Huckabee’s remarks as a pointed critique of what they perceive as Starmer’s hesitancy on the world stage. A Conservative backbencher, who also requested anonymity, said “Starmer’s foreign policy often feels like it’s driven by focus groups rather than conviction. Huckabee’s point, however blunt, resonates with those who think Britain needs to project strength, not equivocation.”
The Dresden reference, in particular, has stirred controversy. The bombing campaign, part of the Allies’ broader strategy to cripple Nazi Germany’s infrastructure, remains a deeply divisive chapter in Britain’s wartime history. While some historians argue it was a necessary blow to hasten the end of the war, others condemn it as disproportionate, with civilian deaths far outweighing military gains.
Huckabee’s invocation of the episode appears designed to underscore the moral and strategic complexities of wartime decision-making, casting Israel’s actions in Gaza as a similarly tough but necessary response to an intransigent foe.
The ambassador’s remarks also highlight the delicate balancing act facing Starmer as he navigates Britain’s role in an increasingly volatile Middle East. Since taking office, the prime minister has sought to position the UK as a champion of international law and humanitarian principles, while maintaining strong ties with allies like the United States and Israel. His condemnation of the Gaza City plan, however, has drawn criticism from pro-Israel voices, who argue that it risks alienating a key regional partner at a time when Hamas continues to hold hostages and launch attacks.
In Israel, Huckabee’s comments have been met with a mix of approval and unease. A senior official in Jerusalem, speaking off the record, suggested that while the ambassador’s support for Israel’s position was welcome, his tone risked inflaming tensions with a close ally.
“Britain remains a vital partner,” the official said. “We value robust debate, but comparisons to the Second World War are unlikely to advance the conversation.”
The row comes at a time of heightened scrutiny of Starmer’s leadership, both at home and abroad. With Labour grappling with domestic challenges, including economic stagnation and public sector unrest, critics argue that the prime minister’s response to international crises has often appeared reactive rather than strategic.
Supporters, however, insist that Starmer’s measured approach reflects a commitment to diplomacy over brinkmanship, a stance they claim is vital in an era of global instability.For now, the spat with Huckabee risks overshadowing Starmer’s broader foreign policy agenda, which includes efforts to broker a ceasefire in Gaza and secure the release of hostages.
As the prime minister prepares to address the UN General Assembly next month, he will be keenly aware that his words—and his silences—are being watched closely, not just in London but in capitals across the world.
The US embassy in Jerusalem declined to comment further on Huckabee’s post, referring queries to his personal X account. In Westminster, meanwhile, MPs are bracing for what promises to be a contentious debate when Parliament reconvenes, with the government likely to face questions over its handling of the ambassador’s remarks and its broader approach to the Middle East.
As the dust settles on this diplomatic skirmish, one thing is clear: Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership, whether in the shadow of Churchill or the glare of modern geopolitics, is under intense scrutiny. Whether he can rise to the challenge remains to be seen.
