News

Inside ‘Greater Israel’: myths and truths behind the long-time Zionist fantasy

The expansive territorial ambitions of creating a "Greater Israel" once seemed only to be a right-wing Zionist fantasy. Today, current events in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria show it might be closer than many ever thought possible. 

As Israel pushed its forces deep into sovereign Syrian territory following the fall of Bashar Al-Assad’s regime the term ‘Greater Israel’ has resurfaced in media coverage. The term has been used in recent days to describe Israel’s military expansion beyond its currently recognized borders, an ever-expanding definition of what the Israeli state can come to encompass. The maps used to describe the vision often echo biblical stories that many Zionists consider as history. But what is the ‘Greater Israel’ idea in actuality? Is there really such an Israeli project? And how realistic is it that it will be realized?

While the territorial dreams of the right-wing Zionists once appeared to be nothing more than colonial fantasies, current events in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria show the hopes for the ascendant Israeli far right might be closer to fruition than many ever thought possible. 

What is ‘Greater Israel‘?

The term “Greater Israel” refers to the idea of a Jewish state expanding across large parts of the Middle East as a supposed reincarnation of what the Bible describes as the territory of the ancient Israelite tribes, the Israelite kingdom, or the land promised by God to Abraham and his descendants. There are at least three versions of ‘Greater Israel’ in the Bible.

In the book of Genesis, God promises Abraham the land “from the brook of Egypt to the Euphrates,” for him and his descendants. In the book of Deuteronomy, God tells Moses to lead the Hebrew people in the taking over of the land that includes all of Palestine, all of Lebanon, and parts of Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. And in the book of Samuel describes the ‘united monarchy’ established by the bible’s King Saul, then expanded by the bible’s King David to include Palestine without the Negev desert, parts of Jordan, all of Lebanon, and parts of Syria.

In the early 20th century, the debate over the limits of the yet-to-be Jewish state was the main reason for the emergence of the revisionist current within the Zionist movement. In the Balfour Declaration of 1917, Britain promised to establish “a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.” The name “Palestine” had described essentially the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean for 4,000 years, with varying limits, often as a sub-part of Syria or its own province under different empires. But since borders weren’t defined yet in the then-Ottoman Levant, the eastern bank of the Jordan River was widely seen as an extension of Palestine. 

After Britain and France split the Levant into areas of influence, and after the establishment of an Arab emirate in Jordan, which is today’s Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, mainstream Zionists defined their project for a Jewish state within the British mandatory limits of Palestine. The Zionist leader and theoretician Ze’ev Jabotinsky, who founded the revisionist current within Zionism, disagreed and insisted that the Zionist project should include Jordan. He then founded the Irgun paramilitary gang, later responsible for various atrocities during the Nakba of 1948, whose emblem included a map of both Palestine and Jordan and the inscription ‘Land of Israel’. This became the modern political conception of “Greater Israel.”

‘Greater Israel’ in Israeli politics

After the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, theoretical debates gave way to political pragmatism. Israel never included “Greater Israel” in its official discourse, and it never officially claimed the right to make Arab territory beyond its 1948 boundaries part of its own domain, even after its occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, the Sinai desert, and the Syrian Golan heights in 1967. It maintained that these were ‘administrated territories’ for security reasons until its annexation of the eastern part of Jerusalem and the Golan in the early 1980s.

However, as Israel never defined its borders, the idea of a “Greater Israel” remained in the imagination of religious right Israelis as a foundational myth that some extremists took more seriously. The religious right wing began to grow stronger after 1967, especially in the 1970s and 1980s. One belief that gained traction in this period was the messianic trend that sees the expansion of Israel beyond its borders as part of the fulfillment of the end of times, and the coming of the Jewish Messiah. This movement spearheaded settlement in the occupied Palestinian West Bank, often drawing plans that would later be adopted by the state.

The term “Greater Israel” resurfaced in the media during Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982, when Israeli forces pushed deep into Lebanon’s territory beyond the Litani river, which in one of the biblical versions, is the northern limit of the “Greater Israel.” It was not coincidental that “Greater Israel” came to the fore during this time. Israel was led at the time by the former Irgun leader, Menachem Begin, known for his extremist rhetoric and views. When Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah’s leader Hasan Nasrallah declared in his famous speech at Bint Jbeil that “the Greater Israel project is over.”

The term came back into political discourse through the rhetoric of religious right-wing extremists from the settlement movement, many of whom were elected into office in the second half of the 2000s. The most notorious of them is Bezalel Smotrich, who now holds the position of Finance Minister, with unprecedented powers over settlement policy in the West Bank. He said in an old interview featured in a documentary by the French-German channel Arte, that he dreamed of a “Greater Israel that would extend from the Nile and the Euphrates”, with the limits of the Jewish Jerusalem extending all the way to the Syrian capital of Damascus. In March 2023, Smotrich sparked controversy by giving a speech to a group of pro-Israel activists in Paris from a podium decorated with the map of Jabotinsky’s “Greater Israel” from the old Irgun emblem, including Palestine and Jordan.

With religious Zionists’ increasingly outspoken calls to annex the West Bank, the term began to be used as a shorthand for a vision of Israel extending over all of historic Palestine and has become synonymous with the rejection of a Palestinian state. This version of greater Israel was reinforced with Israel’s nation-state law passed in 2018 and with the Knesset’s resolution last February rejecting the establishment of a Palestinian state anywhere between the river and the sea.

Territorial ambitions in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria

The Gaza genocide, and events across the region, have given new life to the “Greater Israel” idea as well.

Since the start of the current genocide, calls increased by religious right-wing extremists, mostly from the West Bank settler movement to establish Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip. These calls have been backed by ministers and Knesset members. 

In January, settler organizations held a conference in Jerusalem to call for settling Gaza. Israel’s security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir attended the event and gave a speech at it. In October, hundreds of Israelis rallied near the Gaza fence to call for settlements in Gaza. Both Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, and other Israeli politicians attended and gave speeches. Since last October 6, Israel has been besieging the north of Gaza, forcing the population to leave, the same area the settler movement hopes to re-establish colonies in Gaza. Israel’s former war minister Mosheh Yaalon admitted earlier this month that Israel was committing ethnic cleansing in the north of Gaza, sparking backlash in Israeli media.

In effect, it seemed that between calls to settle Gaza and efforts to annex the West Bank, preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state, the practical implementation of “Greater Israel” was well on its way. But then rapidly evolving events in Lebanon and Syria over recent months resuscitated fantasies of a maximalist version of “Greater Israel” in the Israeli discourse. 

Israel’s demands to create a buffer zone inside Lebanon, combined with its invasion of Syrian territory following the collapse of Bashar Al-Assad’s regime have expanded the conceptual map. As Israeli forces reached as close as 23 kilometers from Damascus, Israeli religious extremists began bringing back biblical rhetoric to describe their territorial ambitions. In June, the Israeli daily Haaretz published a news article about an Israeli children’s books writer who had written a story about an Israeli child called Alon who wants to go to Lebanon, saying that “Lebanon is ours,” and that he couldn’t yet go to Lebanon because “the enemy is still there.” Last Thursday, a group of religious Orthodox Israelis went to the summit of Mount Al-Sheikh in Syria, recently occupied by the Israeli army, and held a religious ceremony there, under the sight of Israeli soldiers.

Israel insists that its actions in Syria are temporary, aiming at preventing resistance groups from filling the vacuum in the south of Syria, created by the collapse of the Syrian army. The U.S. national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, both repeated the same Israeli argument, affirming that the U.S. will make sure that Israel’s presence in Syria doesn’t become permanent.

However, Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and the Golan Heights in 1967 was also said to be temporary. Israel administrated all the territories it occupied in 1967 through the Israeli army and its ‘civil administration’ body for years. It engaged in negotiations with Syria, Egypt, and the Palestinian leadership, all based on the premise that it would give these territories back.

Israel only withdrew from Egypt’s Sinai, on the condition stipulated in the 1979 Camp David peace treaty with Egypt, that the Sinai remains demilitarized, with no Egyptian army presence, except a minimum force at the border, and that it remains open for Israeli investment. Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip’s interior in 2005, only to impose a total blockade on it, and is currently driving Palestinians from its northern part while settlers advocate to establish settlements there. Israel annexed the Golan Heights and the eastern part of Jerusalem in 1981 and is currently preparing to announce the annexation of the West Bank.

With such a record, with the rise of religious nationalism in Israel, and with Israel’s actions in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria unchecked over the past year, and its current push into Syria, can anybody guarantee that the fantasy of a “Greater Israel” is only a fantasy in the minds of Israeli leaders? On the contrary, it appears the expansionist supremacist ideology fueled by religious fanaticism, currently making its way over dead bodies and the rubble of entire cities, is not only a bad memory of the colonial past.

33 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This would be a good time to drag out an old Mondoweiss piece from the late Yossi Gurwitz –

Tom Friedman’s belief in an ‘ancestral homeland’ is a toxic myth and not history…Don’t know how to break it to you, Tom, but Israel isn’t your ancestral homeland. You were born in Minnesota in 1953. Your parents also lived in the US. Wherever your grandparents came from, it wasn’t Israel, since it didn’t exist at the time….What you’re referring to, Tom, without even noticing it, is the myth that Jews today are all the descendants of Jews who once lived in Palestine, and as such have an eternal right to the land. This is the founding myth of Zionism, and it often masquerades as history. Let’s blow it up, shall we?…When Alexander comes on the scene circa 330, and with him people who actually know how to write history, we have a different snapshot of Jewish communities. There is a very large Jewish community in Persia, Syria, and Asia Minor; there is a huge, and hugely important, Jewish community in Egypt; and there is a relatively small community in Judea, with Jerusalem a minor city….Again: 10% of the residents of the Roman Empire were Jewish circa 4 BC. That’s a very long way from the “who?” period of Herodotus’ visit to Palestine, and the communities are much, much stronger than they were even in Alexander’s time….What happened? Jewish history is stubbornly silent on this point (or, for that matter, just about any other point), but all the evidence (particularly the archeological one) points to a massive campaign of conversion to Judaism, lasting centuries. Like Protestantism much later, Judaism had much to offer to a burgeoning middle class: seriousness, piety, stability, honesty, and a network of Jewish centers everywhere. Presumably that 1/7 reduction in taxes and the exemption from military service didn’t hurt, either….
Gurwitz goes on to trample the various myths that make up the “Jewish homeland” ideology, including the ‘exile’ myth. Worth a re-read.

https://mondoweiss.net/2019/03/friedmans-ancestral-homeland/

Re: “Greater Israel” once seemed only to be a right-wing Zionist fantasy.

Correction: No, the plans to eventually conquer all of Palestine, the Sinai, Transjordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and incorporate the remainder of the Middle East in an Israeli sphere of influence was always shared with the left-wing Zionists too.

Olmert says the annexation of all remaining Palestine could lead to the end of Israel.

See the first 18 seconds of this fascinating discussion. (Consider also 33:00 to 34:00. And, 37:40 for 9 min….. students only.)

Rabbi Shapiro quotes Ex-PM Olmert (opening 18 seconds), ” If people stopped talking about the 2SS and instead there were movements for equal rights in Israel, Israel is over!”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvHffGoE-HU&t=2082s

The Moral Shame of U.S. Foreign Policy

December 18, 2024Mark Harris

A new study has found that almost half of children in Gaza wish to die, as a result of the trauma they have been forced to endure. Every single supplier of arms to Israel has blood on its hands—and the world will never forgive them.”—Jeremy Corbyn, MP (Dec. 12, 2024)

“The election of former President Donald Trump to another term as U.S. president has been cause for profound despair among millions of Democratic voters. Certainly anyone who cares about human and democratic rights can only feel dismay about the return of this notorious megalomaniac to the White House.

But worse than the election results is another deflating reality. Neither major party candidate represented a challenge to U.S. complicity in Israel’s horrific war on the people and land of Gaza.

The presidential election proved to be a choice between two electable candidates, manifestly different on the surface, yet neither of whom was capable of taking a principled stand against the worst crime imaginable—genocide.

Consider that reality for a moment. While the Democratic candidate Kamala Harris campaigned as the defender of democracy, our only hope against the fascist predations of Republican Trump, the current vice president refused to consider even the slightest change in course from the Biden administration’s staunch support for Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. In fact, for more than a year the supply of U.S. weapons has enabled Israel to carry out one of the most concentrated and deadly military assaults on a population in modern times.

Is what the Israeli military (IDF) doing in Gaza under the auspices of the Biden administration somehow less of a fascist horror show than the threat of Trump’s dystopian vision for the United States? What kind of democracy was it exactly that the Harris campaign stood for, if it excluded the most basic right of the Palestinian people not to be annihilated?

Ultimately, the Harris campaign was nothing more than a glossy marketing machine, a high-paid commercial for more of the same old war and Wall Street politics. Months of nationwide campus and street protests for a permanent Gaza ceasefire and the growing unpopularity of the U.S. role as Israel’s chief arms supplier, resonated little in the end with the Harris campaign’s supposedly savvy advisors. Better instead to highlight the support of anti-Trump Republicans like Liz Cheney than allow a Palestinian-American campaign supporter even five minutes at the Democratic convention to speak about the plight of Gaza. Better to demonstrate loyalty to President Biden, a leader whose legacy is now forever stained in the blood of the Palestinian people.”

https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/12/18/the-moral-shame-of-u-s-foreign-policy/

The GONIF…