Outlook Explainer: How Recent Israeli Actions Are Fuelling Fears Of A ‘Greater Israel’ Project

In the middle of an ongoing US-Israel war on Iran with ongoing genocide on Palestine and Lebanon by Israel, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared in a recorded wartime address with a map that showed the occupied West Bank as part of Israel, a visual that quickly drew scrutiny for what it suggested about the country’s long-term ambitions.

Days later, standing with Israeli troops in southern Lebanon, Netanyahu declared that Israeli forces had “thwarted” an invasion threat but warned there was “more work to do,” even as operations continued across borders.

These developments have unfolded alongside a series of actions that critics say point to a broader ideological and strategic trajectory. Israeli forces have flattened villages in parts of Lebanon, echoing earlier destruction in Gaza and the West Bank. Meanwhile, far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir entered the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound under heavy security, offering Jewish prayers at a site governed by a long-standing status quo arrangement.

“Today, I feel like the owner here,” Ben-Gvir said during his visit.

Jordan called the move “a desecration of its sanctity, a condemnable escalation and an unacceptable provocation,” while Palestinian authorities described it as a “blatant violation” of the site’s historical and legal status.

Taken together, territorial signalling, military expansion beyond borders, and religious assertions in contested spaces, these incidents have renewed debate over what analysts, historians, and political observers describe as the idea of “Greater Israel”.

History and evolving strategy

The concept of “Greater Israel” is neither new nor uniform. It draws from overlapping strands of religious belief, early Zionist thought, and contemporary political strategy.

At its most expansive, the idea traces back to biblical interpretations of a land promised “from the Nile to the Euphrates.” In modern political terms, however, its meaning varies widely, from claims over all of historic Palestine to more maximalist visions extending into neighbouring Arab states.

Figures associated with Israel’s far-right have, at times, articulated versions of this vision explicitly. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has called for expansion “to Damascus”, while settler leader Daniela Weiss has publicly promoted maps depicting a vastly enlarged Israeli state across the Middle East.

Smotrich first mentioned the project in the public light on 19th March 2023 during a speech in Paris, where he displayed a map which spanned the territory of modern Israel, the West Bank, and the entire Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. He has even regularly called for the annexation of the entire West Bank and is currently pushing ahead with several projects designed to make Palestinian self-determination impossible, as per reports.

Even when not formally adopted as State policy, the idea has increasingly intersected with actions on the ground.

Since 1967, Israel has expanded settlements across the West Bank and East Jerusalem, territories considered occupied under international law. Over time, this has created what many analysts describe as a “de facto annexation”. More than 700,000 Israeli settlers now live beyond the 1967 lines. During the 1948 Naqba, at least 700,000 to 750,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homes or fled through violent means, becoming refugees. More recently, since 7 October 2023, an estimated 1.9 million Palestinians, which is nearly the entire population of the Gaza Strip, have been displaced as a result of the violence caused by Israel. 

In recent years, the scope has widened. Israeli forces have maintained a prolonged presence in southern Lebanon, intensified strikes and territorial assertions in Syria following the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, and pursued operations targeting Iran, widely seen as a key regional rival.

This expansion is not only territorial. Analysts argue it also reflects a strategy of regional military dominance and influence.

Israel’s integration into US Central Command (CENTCOM), deeper security ties with Arab states, and efforts to shape regional infrastructure, from energy routes to intelligence networks, suggest ambitions that go beyond borders. Netanyahu himself has hinted at this broader vision, speaking of building “a kind of hexagon of alliances” linking Israel with countries across Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and the Mediterranean.

Critics argue that such a framework positions Israel not just as a state defending itself, but as a central node in a US-backed regional order, one that could reshape political alignments across West Asia. UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned that the “Gaza model must not be replicated in Lebanon.”

“Israel has stated it does not plan to leave Lebanon even if the current ‘war’ ends,” Qassam Muaddi, a Palestinian journalist wrote for Mondoweiss. “If the Gaza model is any guide, Israel appears to be moving toward expanding its border into Lebanon … Israel is in the process of re-drawing the map of the Middle East, particularly in Lebanon” to further its goal of creating “Greater Israel.”

At the same time, the ongoing war with Iran has exposed limits. Despite sustained military pressure, Tehran has retained its regional standing, with control over the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant portion of global oil flows, remaining intact.

“From the river to the sea”: slogan and contestation

The renewed focus on territorial ambition has also brought back one of the most contentious political slogans associated with the conflict: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” Geographically, the phrase refers to the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, encompassing Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.

Historically, it has been used by Palestinian movements, including the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), as a call for a unified Palestinian homeland. Over time, its meaning has evolved, and fractured.

For many Palestinians and their supporters, the phrase represents a demand for freedom, equality, and the right of return across all of historic Palestine. It is often framed as a rejection of fragmented sovereignty under occupation. For many Israelis and Jewish organisations, however, the slogan is heard very differently, as a call for the dismantling of Israel and a threat to Jewish self-determination. Yet the irony, as some analysts point out, is that forms of “river to sea” control already exist in practice.

Since 1967, Israel has exercised varying degrees of authority over the entire territory between the river and the sea, through occupation, settlement expansion, and military dominance. This has led critics to argue that a one-state reality already exists, albeit without equal rights for all who live within it.

In early 2023, the political scientists Michael Barnett, Nathan Brown, Marc Lynch and Shibley Telhami published an edited volume called “The One State Reality.” Their argument, which they also made in a Foreign Affairs piece, was: “Palestine is not a state in waiting, and Israel is not a democratic state incidentally occupying Palestinian territory. All the territory west of the Jordan River has long constituted a single state under Israeli rule, where the land and the people are subject to radically different legal regimes, and Palestinians are permanently treated as a lower caste.”

A shifting landscape

What makes the current moment distinct is not just the persistence of these ideas, but the convergence of ideology, military action, and geopolitical opportunity. Israel’s wars across Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran, combined with shifting alliances in the region, have created what some describe as a window for strategic transformation.

Rania Khalek, a Lebanese journalist wrote on X that on  April 14, the Lebanese government met with the Israelis in DC where “they talked about sham "peace" and how Hezbollah and Iran are the enemy of everyone, while Israel is blowing up our village, displacing our people and occupying our land.” A day later, Israel renewed its demand that everyone south of the Zahrani River displace themselves immediately toward the north or risk death. “By validating that Hezbollah is the big monster, the Lebanese government has essentially helped Israel justify this horror. Utterly depraved,” she wrote. 

Public opinion in the United States, Israel’s closest ally, has shown signs of shifting, with growing criticism of Israeli military actions. Upcoming electoral cycles could further reshape Washington’s approach. The result is a paradox: while recent actions suggest an attempt to push toward a more expansive and dominant regional role, they may also be generating the very opposition that could constrain it.

In a recent interview, Rabbi Elhanan Beck, a Jewish activist and member of the anti-Zionist Neturei Karta movement, and a strong supporter of Palestine, argued that, according to the Torah, the state of Israel has no right to exist. He goes further, describing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as “Amalek,” a force that pulls people away from God. He said that if necessary, Israel would use nuclear weapons and that “no price is too high,” even suggesting that the state could kill millions to achieve its objectives.