Khamenei.ir

Hossein Ajorlou, researcher and expert in international affairs

On August 12, 2025, an interview with Netanyahu was broadcast on the i24 network. During a segment of this interview, he spoke openly about the concept of “Greater Israel,” which he described as his spiritual and historical mission. This explicit statement effectively confirms the long-held view of Resistance supporters, who maintain that the Zionist regime pursues territorial and security expansionism that is not confined to the lands occupied in 1948 and 1967. This perspective stands in contrast to the position of certain currents and Arab as well as non-Arab countries that advocate for a two-state solution and normalization to establish stability in West Asia. These actors consider the Resistance a costly endeavor for the region, whereas a proper understanding of the issue is essential for an accurate analysis of regional developments.

The idea of “Greater Israel” functions as a core ideology, playing a foundational role in the Zionist regime’s territorial expansionism. Rooted in distorted religious and historical interpretations of the concept of “Eretz Yisrael” (the Land of Israel), this idea explicitly defines the scope and geography of its expansionist ambitions. Proponents of this idea, drawing on references from the Books of Genesis, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Ezekiel, lay claim to territories stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates. This ideological framework lends spiritual and historical legitimacy to expansionist actions, transforming them from a mere political agenda into an identity-driven mission.

Much of the literature produced in the West and even within the Islamic world has attempted to associate this idea with extremist right-wing Zionist currents, portraying them as distinct from the mainstream political establishment of the Zionist regime. However, a closer examination reveals that this idea has been the driving force behind Israel’s strategic decisions and practical measures. It is this very ideology that justifies policies such as militarization, the creation of extensive security organizations, the establishment of security buffer zones, the shaping of a regional security order, settlement construction, the development of exclusive infrastructure, and the imposition of military control over occupied territories. These are not merely justified but are regarded as essential steps toward the realization of this vision.

The parties and movements that carry this ideology, by transforming it into official policy, provide the necessary political will to advance the project of expansionism and embody it in undeniable demographic and geographic facts on the ground. Undoubtedly, this represents a more accurate and profound understanding. Conversely, linking the “Greater Israel” idea solely to marginal and extremist groups constitutes a superficial and misleading analysis that ignores both the realities on the ground and the historical trajectory of the Zionist regime’s expansionism. For instance, in his address on March 27, 1992, the Leader of the Islamic Revolution stated: “The Zionists haven't abandoned their objectives. They haven't retracted their stated goal of wanting to usurp from the Nile to the Euphrates. Their objective remains usurping land from the Nile to the Euphrates! However, the Zionists' plan of action is to first establish a strong foothold using various tricks and forms of deceit. When they have established a strong foothold, they plan to advance as far as they can using pressure, attacks, assassinations, force, and violence. When they're faced with fierce confrontation - be it political or military - they pause and go back to their sly approach to be able to take another step forward! Once they manage to take a step forward, they start using force and violence again. This is what they've been doing for the last 60 to 70 years.”

The regime’s actions toward the realization of the “Greater Israel” doctrine

This idea, whether overtly or covertly, has evolved into a “meta-ideology” or overarching concept that governs Zionism’s strategy and directs the actions of the regime’s political and military mainstream. The following can be considered as its manifestations:

1. Statements of official figures: Beyond Netanyahu, other officials have commented directly or indirectly on “Greater Israel”. The most significant among them is David Ben-Gurion. A letter from the regime’s founder and first Prime Minister to his son Amos on October 5, 1937, following the Peel Commission, remains one of the most explicit documents. It demonstrates that the “Greater Israel” idea was never a marginal aspiration but has been present from the outset in the minds of the principal architects of the Zionist project, shaping their roadmap. In this letter, Ben-Gurion writes: “A Jewish state on only a part of the land [as proposed by the Peel Commission] in not the end but the beginning. We increase our strength, and every increase in strength helps in the possession of the land as a whole. The establishment of a state, is the maximal reinforcement of our strength at the present time and a powerful boost to our historical endeavors to liberate [occupy] the entire country.” On March 29, 2006, following the elections, Ehud Olmert openly affirmed: “For thousands of years we have dreamed in our hearts of a greater Israel, an entire land of Israel, and such a country will always remain a dream in our hearts.” These statements reveal that the leaders of the Zionist regime, regardless of their political orientation or religious outlook, ultimately uphold the notion of “Greater Israel” as the grand Jewish project for domination over the region. The claim to a “Greater Israel” is therefore not confined to any particular faction among the Zionists.
2. Annexation plans: The continued military occupation of the West Bank and the Golan Heights for over fifty-five years, along with official efforts toward de jure [legally recognized] annexation, attests to this claim. This occupation is not merely a temporary security matter but constitutes an integrated system for controlling land, resources (particularly water), and populations, enabling the implementation of the expansionist project. Immediately after the 1967 war, Yigal Allon, a prominent minister of the Labor Party, proposed a plan for the annexation of the West Bank. In this plan, the Jordan Valley was to be permanently incorporated into Israeli territory as Israel’s “security border.” Strategically, this valley represented the first step eastward toward Mesopotamia, the area corresponding to present-day Iraq.
3. Military and security measures: Regional military and security operations, such as the establishment of security arrangements during the 1956 and 1967 wars to occupy the Sinai Desert, and military actions in Syria to create the “David Corridor,” can be seen as the most concrete steps toward realizing the “Nile to the Euphrates” ambition.
4. Settlement construction: Settlement construction is pursued as a supra-party national project within the Zionist regime. Although right-wing parties conduct the most intensive promotion of settlements, their establishment in the West Bank and East Jerusalem [al-Quds] has continued extensively even under so-called “leftist” or “moderate” governments, such as the Labor Party. For instance, the largest wave of settlement construction after the 1967 war began under Levi Eshkol’s government from the Labor Party. Yitzhak Rabin, often portrayed as a symbol of peace, was himself among the founders of certain Zionist settlements. This demonstrates that settlement construction functions as a strategic tool for altering geographic and demographic realities and gradually advancing the idea of “Greater Israel,” regardless of the ruling government’s political orientation.

Potential consequences of the “Greater Israel” idea

If the idea of “Greater Israel” is not met with serious and combined resistance, it could precipitate crises and challenges at both regional and domestic levels for Islamic and Arab countries. The most significant consequences include:

1. Destruction of the regional order based on local realities: Implementing this idea entails influencing the current borders and national sovereignty of several countries, including Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and parts of Egypt and Saudi Arabia. This situation would thrust the region into a cycle of perpetual insecurity, involving peripheral areas such as Iran and Turkey in extensive foreign interventions. The execution of this plan also signifies the onset of a devastating war, potentially involving direct or indirect participation of all regional countries and even global powers.
2.  Intensification of instability: The minimal consequences of implementing the idea of “Greater Israel” would be the weakening of national sovereignty in surrounding countries. The destruction of national governments and their replacement with entities dependent on the Zionists would create a severe power vacuum, leading to internal conflicts, insurrections, and ethnic and religious wars centered around transnational and subnational power networks.

1. Humanitarian catastrophe: The execution of this plan would necessitate ethnic cleansing, forced displacement, and genocide on a scale far greater than what has been witnessed in Gaza, resulting in the greatest humanitarian disaster since World War II. An enormous wave of refugees and displaced populations would emerge, confronting not only the region but also Europe and the world with an unprecedented crisis.
2. Destruction of cultural heritage: This plan would lead to the annihilation of the region’s richest cultural heritage and ancient civilizations, erasing the historical identity of nations. Evidence for this claim can be seen in the deliberate manipulations of al-Quds by the Zionist regime.

In summary, confronting the idea of “Greater Israel” as an expansionist project and a serious threat to regional security and stability is imperative. This idea, explicitly confirmed by officials of the Zionist regime, could lead to the destruction of regional order, intensification of instability, humanitarian catastrophe, and the eradication of cultural heritage. Without a serious response and combined resistance against this idea, Islamic and Arab countries will face significant challenges that threaten not only their national sovereignty but could also trigger extensive humanitarian and social crises on a global scale. Therefore, establishing a united front and developing effective strategies to counter this threat is vital for preserving the security and identity of the countries of West Asia and the Islamic world.

(The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Khamenei.ir.)