Rev. Jennifer Hosler on Christian Zionism & Mike Huckabee

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/27

Rev. Dr. Jennifer Hosler, a pastor and peace activist, speaks with Scott Douglas Jacobsen about her faith-based advocacy for Palestinian rights and opposition to Christian Zionism. Rooted in Christian liberation theology and nonviolent resistance, she critiques Mike Huckabee’s nomination as U.S. Ambassador to Israel due to his support for annexation, illegal settlements, and harmful theology. She highlights her presence as a prayerful witness at his confirmation hearing protest, emphasizing solidarity with Palestinian Christians. Hosler distinguishes between Christian Zionism forms, challenges biblical justifications for occupation, and calls for justice through responsible theology, peacemaking, and recognition of Palestinian self-determination.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Rev. Dr. Jennifer Hosler. Rev. Jenn is a Christian pastor and peace activist rooted in the prophetic tradition of nonviolent resistance. She is a member of Christians for a Free Palestine. She has been a vocal critic of Christian Zionism and its role in enabling human rights violations against Palestinians. With a pastoral ministry and liberation theology background, Reverend Jenn is committed to solidarity with local and global communities. She was present at the disruption of Mike Huckabee’s Senate confirmation hearing to oppose his nomination and to advocate for justice, dignity, and self-determination for the Palestinian people. 

Rev. Dr. Jennifer Hosler: And by “participate,” I just want to clarify that my role was accompaniment and prayerful witness and observation. I was not one of the official disruptors, but I was part of the group involved in the disruption.

Jacobsen: So, what motivated your presence at the disruption of Mike Huckabee’s confirmation hearing? What about his stances, in particular, justified this form of protest?

Hosler: Yes. I believe that Mike Huckabee is unfit to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to Israel because he promotes Christian Zionist theology, which is extremely harmful. This theology attempts to erase the Palestinian people and disregards the realities of modern-day Israel-Palestine. Huckabee has openly supported the unilateral annexation of the West Bank and claimed there is no such thing as a Palestinian—a claim that is both historically inaccurate and deeply offensive, especially to Palestinian Christians in Bethlehem and elsewhere.

He also supports illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, which are considered violations of international law under the Fourth Geneva Convention. These settlements contribute to the ongoing displacement of Palestinians—a process many human rights organizations describe as ethnic cleansing. Huckabee has participated in events supporting these settlements and has appeared at ribbon-cutting ceremonies for settler-run tourism centers, including in the Palestinian neighbourhood of Silwan in East Jerusalem.

I have seen the impact of this firsthand. Last year, I joined a Christian solidarity delegation to the West Bank and East Jerusalem at the invitation of Palestinian Christian leaders. We visited places like Hebron, where I witnessed the apartheid-like conditions imposed by Israeli military authorities and settlers. These include checkpoints, segregated roads, and the constant threat of violence and displacement against Palestinian families.

Recently, we’ve seen renewed violent displacement, including during Ramadan, when Palestinian communities have been attacked and homes demolished. This includes areas like Masafer Yatta, Bethlehem, and Silwan. Huckabee’s rhetoric—such as calling the West Bank by its biblical names, “Judea and Samaria”—serves to legitimize these actions and ignore the legal and humanitarian rights of the people living there.

At the disruption, you may have seen shirts we were wearing that said “All Eyes on Palestine,” along with an image of a pair of eyes. This image comes from a mural in the neighbourhood of Silwan—painted to depict the eyes of the blind man from the Gospel of John, chapter 9, where Jesus heals him and tells him to wash in the Pool of Siloam. That very site is located in Silwan, and the Israeli government, together with settler organizations like Elad, has been turning it into a tourist attraction while displacing the Palestinian residents living there—some of whom have been there for centuries.

Our goal was to bear witness to the harm caused by the Christian Zionist ideology Huckabee promotes and to call U.S. Senators to oppose his nomination. We cannot afford to put someone in a diplomatic position who advocates for violent theology and policies that perpetuate injustice.

And so Huckabee is committed to this—there is erasure of Palestinians happening in Silwan, and Huckabee has been there. People are being pushed out, homes are being destroyed, and Huckabee, as the U.S. ambassador nominee, approves of this. Rather than being a friend who holds others accountable—because the U.S. and Israel have very strong ties—Huckabee is not at all interested in accountability.

He is just interested in greenlighting whatever actions support his Christian Zionist theology, which is a warped view advocating for complete Israeli control of everything in the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza, all for apocalyptic purposes. So I say—and many other Christians are saying—we need to open our eyes, and we need to stop Mike Huckabee from becoming the U.S. ambassador to Israel.

Jacobsen: Now, for those who hear the term “Zionism” and hear it mixed in with “Christian Zionism,” is the general premise of Christian Zionism support for the State of Israel primarily for the fulfillment of biblical prophecy and end-times events? Is that their core eschatology, grounded in superficial geopolitics?

Hosler: When I talk about Christian Zionism, I try to distinguish between what I call “Christian Zionism light” and “apocalyptic Christian Zionism.” I’ve been asked to explain this to different groups, and I came out of a Christian Zionist theology myself.

“Christian Zionism light” is a certain interpretation of Scripture. It conflates any mention of Israel in the Hebrew Scriptures or the New Testament with the modern nation-state of Israel, which declared independence in 1948. It treats those references as synonymous, automatically assuming that the biblical “Israel” equals today’s Israel and that this modern political entity is divinely ordained.

This interpretation lacks rigorous biblical theology. For example, one might see in Genesis that Abraham was promised land and blessing. Still, later in the Hebrew Scriptures, particularly in the prophetic books, there are clear conditions tied to God’scovenant with ancient Israel—justice, righteousness, right worship, and ethical behaviour. The Babylonian exile demonstrated that the covenant was broken, showing that land possession was not unconditional.

To claim that the present nation-state of Israel is the exact continuation of biblical Israel ignores the complexities of covenant theology and the injustices being committed today. Simply fast-forwarding to say “it’s the same” is misleading and deeply flawed theology.

Then, there’s the apocalyptic version—what some call dispensational premillennialism. This includes beliefs about the Rapture, a very new theology, only about 150 years old. According to this view, Jesus will return and take up the saved, and the rest of the world will endure a time of great tribulation.

A key part of this eschatology is the idea that all Jews must be in the land of Israel and that the entire land must be under Jewish control to trigger the Second Coming. So there’s this dangerous motivation to ensure Jewish dominance over the land—not because of support for Jews as a people, but because their presence is seen as necessary to achieve the “end times.”

This is deeply troubling. Many of my Jewish allies see this for what it is: treating Jews as pawns in someone else’s theological game. They find this perspective offensive and anti-Semitic.

This apocalyptic Christian Zionism is utilizing modern geopolitics and the untold suffering of millions to serve its theology. It is particularly egregious in that it denies the personhood of Palestinian Christians—Christians who have lived in the Holy Land since the time of Jesus—and who are now saying, “This is hurting us.”

These policies against Palestinians affect both Muslims and Christians. They are destroying lives. One of the greatest factors driving Christians out of Palestine is that life under occupation is unbearably difficult. It is not due to Islamophobia. It is not, as some fundamentalist Christians claim, that “Muslims are kicking out the Christians.” That is not true. It is the Israeli occupation that is damaging the Christian community in Palestine.

Jacobsen: Why was Silwan chosen as a focal point for the protest? You alluded to some of this earlier.

Hosler: Silwan was chosen as a focal point because it is a powerful example of how Israel is using archaeology and biblical tourism as tools against Palestinians. This neighbourhood, which is sacred to Christians, Muslims, and Jews alike, is being transformed through weaponized heritage projects.

The excavation in Silwan and the Pool of Siloam is adjacent to the so-called “City of David,” which functions essentially as a biblical theme park. Under the guise of creating green space for biblical tourism, Palestinian homes are being slated for demolition, rezoned, and actively destroyed.

I have witnessed this in Silwan. Many groups have worked to raise awareness about it, including by painting eyes all over the neighbourhood—symbolizing that the world is watching. We thought this was particularly poignant: God sees what is happening.

In John 9, Jesus opened the eyes of the blind man at the Pool of Siloam. We are praying, hoping, and acting so that the world’s eyes may also be opened to the injustices taking place in Silwan, Jerusalem, the West Bank, and certainly Gaza.

Jacobsen: Protests are often ripe for misinterpretation—both in benign ways and by bad actors. How has this protest been misunderstood either innocently or malevolently?

Hosler: That’s a great question.

Jacobsen: Because I think—even within the context of what we were discussing—there are multiple interpretations of terms like “Zionism.” You referenced “Christian Zionism light” and the more apocalyptic eschatology of Christian Zionism, which many Jewish allies view as anti-Semitic. Then there’s a separate layer: regular geopolitical Zionism going back to the 1940s, like the idea of a two-state solution.

So when people hear “Zionism,” whether in a theological or political context, many are misinterpreting what you’re saying. And that leads to blowback and forces you to explain yourself repeatedly.

Hosler: I think some of the misunderstanding—maybe in a benign or even benevolent way—comes from people assuming that we’re attacking someone’s theology. I saw something suggesting we were attacking Mike Huckabee’s specific theology. I think it’s more helpful to illustrate that what we’re trying to show is the danger of when a radical theology with geopolitical implications gains power—power that impacts the lives of thousands, even millions.

If someone wants to hold beliefs aligned with “Christian Zionism light” or even apocalyptic Christian Zionism, that’s their personal choice. I would even be open to having conversations about what drew me out of Christian Zionism. However, the real issue is when those beliefs are combined with institutional power. That’s what’s most problematic.

So the misunderstanding is less that we are attacking theology itself and more that we are challenging the permission to wield great power with that theology—especially the power of the United States. That kind of power, when aligned with this theological worldview, effectively greenlights human rights abuses, greenlights the complete annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and pushes people from their homes.

In his hearing, Huckabee said something along the lines that full Israeli control would be acceptable because “things are okay right now.” I’m paraphrasing, of course, but things are not okay right now. That’s why we’re raising warning flags.

Some people may label that as “attacking.” Still, we are trying to do this through nonviolent means to demonstrate the problems of empowering a theological worldview through American diplomatic and political power. That is very troubling to us.

As for malevolent misinterpretations, I haven’t encountered many. I suppose some people could say that we’re “anti-Israel.” But I am not anti-Israel. I want justice, well-being, and wholeness for all Israelis and all Palestinians.

So, a reasonable interpretation would be that I care about the well-being of all people. I am working for justice and to end systemic causes of violence—for everyone. I have little to say about malevolent misinterpretations because I haven’t seen them arise from this particular action or others.

Jacobsen: What is the significance of the eyes of the blind man?

Hosler: Thanks. Yes, I spoke about this a little earlier. In the Gospel of John, chapter 9, a man comes to Jesus for healing, and Jesus tells him to go and wash in the Pool of Siloam. He does, and the religious leaders become upset because it is the Sabbath.

Jesus had put mud on the man’s eyes and told him to wash, and when he did, he was healed. But the religious authorities say that Jesus could not have been from God because he “didn’t keep the Sabbath.” They attack both Jesus and the man who was healed.

The significance of the eyes from the Pool of Siloam—the eyes of the blind man—is to highlight both the sacredness of the land and the need to open the eyes of the world to the injustices happening there. It is a call to bring healing to a place that is wounded and under daily assault.

I was in Silwan in February 2024. On Valentine’s Day, the home of a community leader—who had been meeting with U.S. State Department officials and diplomats from around the world—was targeted for demolition. He was given the choice: demolish it himself or be charged by the Israeli government for its destruction.

Fakhri Abu-Diab, the chairman of the Al-Bustan Residents Committee of Silwan, had his home unilaterally rezoned by Israeli authorities as “green space.” It was then forcibly demolished.

So, our goal with this symbolism—the eyes—is to connect people with the biblical story and the present reality. We need our eyes to be opened. We cannot pretend everything is well in Israel. There are serious injustices taking place, and too many people gloss over them by saying, “Oh, it’s the Holy Land” or “The land of the Bible.”

And it is the land of the Bible. But tragically, people are using that biblical connection to displace, evict, and destroy the lives of others. We want to raise awareness about that.

Jacobsen: How did your church community respond to your involvement in the protests?

Hosler: My church community has been very supportive. I pastor in the Church of the Brethren, a historic peace church tradition. Our theology and practice are deeply rooted in peacemaking.

We understand nonviolent direct action—including civil disobedience—as one of the tools we can use to bring about justice and positive change, so there’s no theological tension for us. My specific role is as Minister of Christian Social Justice and Peacemaking. That role includes a mandate to engage in active peacemaking, which can take many forms, including protest.

My congregation supports this work. We also look back to the origins of our tradition. The Church of the Brethren was founded in 1708 in Germany. At that time, members began baptizing one another as adults—even though they had already been baptized as infants. That act of adult baptism was itself a form of civil disobedience. It was considered treason against the state, which did not recognize adult baptism as legitimate.

Jacobsen: Did any critics say that the protest was disruptive or disrespectful?

Hosler: I didn’t see any particular phrasing that described it as disrespectful. It was disruptive—we interrupted his hearing and spoke out during his remarks. That was the point: to raise attention to the issue. Unfortunately, our elected leaders are not seriously pushing back or truly listening to constituents.

There has been a significant amount of public concern. I know of multiple Christian and Jewish groups—and others—raising serious objections to Mike Huckabee’s nomination. So yes, the action was disruptive. Disrespectful? I haven’t personally heard that interpretation.

Jacobsen: Is there anything that you agree with Mike Huckabee on? I know it’s not always black and white, so I want to offer space for nuance.

Hosler: I appreciate the question, but I can’t answer that meaningfully right now. I’ve mostly been exposed to their beliefs and policies that I find deeply problematic. We must agree on something, but I haven’t done the research to say for sure. I’ll respectfully decline to answer that at the moment.

Jacobsen: How does your faith inform your activism for the Palestinian right to self-determination, particularly in light of Israeli self-determination? So, the question is more about the universal ethic underlying this. The idea is that Israelis have their self-determination—something they are actively practicing—while Palestinians have been struggling for decades, due to state and other policy barriers, to realize that same right.

Hosler: I would say that my faith, especially having once identified as a Christian Zionist, really began to shift when I learned about Palestinian Christians. As Christians, we are called to care for all people—everyone is made in the image of God. However, New Testament scriptures also speak specifically about caring for fellow believers.

After college, I learned about the existence of Arab Christians—and specifically Palestinian Christians. I also learned about the Nakba, or “catastrophe,” the term Palestinians used to describe the mass displacement and violence in 1948. I came to understand the pogroms and military campaigns that occurred before, during, and after that year—attacks that violently uprooted Palestinian communities.

As followers of Jesus, we are called to stand with those who suffer and seek justice. That realization made me deeply concerned with the rights, dignity, and well-being of Palestinians.

In Luke 4, when Jesus gives his first sermon, he reads from the scroll of Isaiah: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor… freedom for the prisoners… and to set the oppressed free.” That message is both spiritual and social—it directly ties faith to justice in the present world.

So, my Christian faith tells me I must care for Palestinians. As they work for recognition, justice, and restitution, I stand with them—particularly my Palestinian Christian siblings, but also with the broader Palestinian community seeking to right the wrongs done to them.

At the same time, as a Christian, I am deeply committed to confronting and lamenting the long legacy of antisemitism perpetuated by Christians over centuries. I work closely with Jewish congregations in Washington, D.C., and Jewish activists who advocate for justice in Palestine.

I am committed to addressing injustice wherever it appears—whether against Palestinians or Israelis. I believe that Palestinian safety is tied to Israeli safety. Working for the dignity, safety, and justice of Palestinians will help bring about security and peace for all people in the land.

Hosler: My faith gives me value and care for all people because all people are made in God’s image.

Jacobsen: Mike Huckabee in his stand for U.S. Ambassador to Israel. He is opposed to a two-state solution and supports Israeli settlements. He also favours using biblical terminology instead of long-standing geographical names—referring to areas like the West Bank as “Judea and Samaria.” As someone with more expertise in this area than I have, what is the central theological problem with applying terms like “Judea” and “Samaria” to contemporary geopolitical contexts?

In what ways is this explicitly problematic—not just in terms of contradicting international norms around the two-state solution and Palestinian self-determination—but also in terms of what seems, from the outside, like a misuse of biblical hermeneutics to force-fit a political agenda?

Hosler: Thank you. I think using language like “Judea and Samaria” is deeply problematic for several reasons.

In addition to contradicting the long-standing international recognition of the occupied Palestinian territories—West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem—the terminology itself is deliberately weaponized. Israeli far-right ministers use these biblical terms because they want to assert ownership over the land and erase Palestinians from the narrative entirely. It is part of an ethnic cleansing framework framed in theological language.

When Mike Huckabee uses that same terminology, he’s effectively sugarcoating ethnic cleansing with biblical vocabulary. Just like in “Christian Zionism light,” where people read “Israel” in the Bible and assume that it automatically endorses modern political Israel, the use of “Judea and Samaria” plays a similar role. People hear those names and think, “Oh, that’s in the Bible—therefore, it belongs to Israel.” It subtly encourages people to ask, “What are Palestinians even doing here? Are there even people here?” That erasure is the goal.

One example of this dynamic is on Bethlehem’s outskirts, at the Tent of Nations. The Nassar family has owned that land for generations. They have legal documentation proving ownership and have been in court for decades defending their right to stay. It is one of the last remaining Palestinian hilltops in that area—Israeli settlements have taken over all the others.

Since October 7, the pressure has intensified. Settlements and outposts have crept closer and closer, and roads have been carved through the land. The Nassar family cannot improve their home—there is no water or electricity. Meanwhile, the surrounding settlements have full infrastructure. People have blocked and destroyed roads leading to the Tent of Nations farm.

This is part of a decades-long effort to displace Palestinians and expand Israeli settlements. If the U.S. ambassador—the top diplomat—uses the same language as far-right Israeli officials like Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir, it legitimizes their goals. These officials are not subtle; they openly declare their intention to remove Palestinians.

So if the U.S. appoints someone who uses their language and shares their theology, it’s one more piece in a very dangerous puzzle—one that accelerates the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the land.

I dramatically object to Huckabee using that language—not only because it contradicts the long-standing terminology used by the international community—but because it uses my faith as a tool to harm people, including Christians like the Nassar family.

Jacobsen: I’ve done many interviews on this topic—with experts and everyday people—and I’m also working on a series about antisemitism. One example came up that I’d like to get your perspective on.

Let’s say you’re a 19-year-old Jewish student. You go to class, maybe join a gardening club at a university like Columbia. The campus environment is highly politicized around the Israel-Palestine issue. You identify as a Zionist, but in a general, cultural sense—you’re Jewish, you support Israel in some loose way. Still, you don’t necessarily support war or violence.

Still, you face backlash for simply being Jewish and expressing support for Israel in that basic way. A clinical psychologist I spoke with said that young people in that situation are approaching them in distress. They’re not political actors, but they’re being treated as stand-ins for an entire geopolitical crisis.

So this isn’t necessarily about left vs. right or a theological dispute—it’s more about how broad geopolitical waves ripple into individual lives. Would you have any message for someone like that—a young Jewish person facing personal antisemitic blowback for something far removed from their individual beliefs or actions? I don’t know if I am doing that justice, but I am describing what is coming my way.

Hosler: I hear what you’re saying. You mentioned “antisemitic blowback,” and for me, that phrase is unfortunately too vague to comment on meaningfully, especially in such a charged context.

You said the student isn’t necessarily involved in or supportive of specific actions. Still, when the term “antisemitic blowback” is used broadly, it becomes hard to discern what’s happening. Right now, there’s a troubling pattern of weaponizing the term “antisemitism” to conflate legitimate criticism of the State of Israel with hatred toward Jewish people. That’s dangerous because it dilutes the meaning of actual antisemitism.

I’m hesitant to respond without more detail because I can’t responsibly comment on the nuances of that student’s experience.

The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement aims to apply pressure on businesses and institutions complicit in the Israeli occupation and the violence perpetrated against Palestinians. That said, BDS does not endorse the targeting of individuals on a personal level.

If someone, at a personal and interpersonal level, chooses not to associate with someone who strongly supports a government actively committing atrocities, that’s their choice. I don’t think that, in and of itself, is antisemitic. But again, I want to be cautious. Targeting someone because they are Jewish, regardless of their political views—that is antisemitism. That is a serious and terrifying reality; we must name and oppose it.

So yes, antisemitism is real and dangerous. But conflating Jewish identity with the policies of a state—any state—is not only misleading, it’s harmful to everyone involved, especially young people just trying to live and learn in peace.

It’s too hazy to comment on that in full detail.

Jacobsen: How do you think the message from the protest was received—both by the Senate and the broader public?

Hosler: I saw definite media interest, particularly around our Jewish allies who first protested and disrupted the hearing. They blew a shofar as part of their action, which was powerful and symbolic. Various media outlets picked up the Jewish-led disruption and the following Christian-led protest.

It was especially important for the media to see that Jewish voices were standing against Huckabee—not necessarily identifying as anti-Zionist, but speaking out because of the antisemitism they recognized in his theology and because of the injustice his ambassadorship would perpetuate. That nuance is important, and I want to be clear: one of the Jewish leaders, IfNotNow, does not identify as anti-Zionist, so I want to be accurate in naming that.

I think it was also significant that some outlets picked up on the Christian presence and message—that Christians were saying, “This form of Christianity is radical.” The theology Huckabee promotes—though it may not look radical in a small congregation or on a television program—has dangerous implications when it gains political power. When it can lead to the displacement of communities or approval of state violence, it becomes radical in a very real and dangerous way.

So yes, I’m encouraged that the media picked up on some of those aspects. I hope it continues to shape how the public understands the stakes of this nomination.

Jacobsen: Is there anything I haven’t sufficiently covered?

Hosler: I think you captured a lot—thank you. 

Jacobsen: Is the Betarmovement even facing off with the ADL?

Hosler: Yes, and it was surprising to see that. The Anti-Defamation League—which, to be honest, many of my Jewish allies have criticized for not consistently living up to its mission—did call the Betargroup a hate group. That’s significant. Some say the ADL has misidentified or downplayed actual antisemitic threats while labelling legitimate criticisms of Israel as antisemitic. So, for them to call out the Betar group suggests that even they view it as a serious threat. It’s a wild moment.

Hosler: Great! Sounds good.

Jacobsen: All right. Thanks, Jenn.

Hosler: Take care, Scott.

Jacobsen: Bye.

Hosler: Bye.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.