What is Netanyahu’s “Greater Israel”?

The concept of “Greater Israel” has once again made headlines in international politics following recent statements by Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s Prime Minister, who referred to this project as a “historic and spiritual mission.” To understand the scope of these words and their impact on the region, it is necessary to review the origin of the idea, its current interpretation, and the consequences it entails.

Historically, the term “Greater Israel” comes from biblical interpretations, particularly a passage in Genesis that describes the land promised to Abraham’s descendants as the territory “from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates.” Throughout the 20th century, this vision transcended the religious sphere and entered the political realm. During the Six-Day War of 1967, Israel occupied vast areas such as the West Bank, Gaza, the Sinai, and the Golan Heights, which reignited in certain sectors the idea of expanding its borders beyond internationally recognized limits.

Currently, the concept has been embraced by ultranationalist currents within Israel, some of which interpret it as a project that would encompass not only the occupied Palestinian territories but also parts of neighboring countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and even areas of Iraq and Saudi Arabia. By aligning himself with this vision, Netanyahu positions himself alongside figures in his government such as Bezalel Smotrich, Finance Minister, who on several occasions has displayed maps of an Israel expanded to Damascus, generating significant concern in the international community.

The Prime Minister’s statements have had an immediate echo in the Arab world. Countries such as Jordan, Egypt, and Iraq, as well as the Arab League, have denounced these positions as a direct threat to regional sovereignty and an insurmountable obstacle to peace in the Middle East. The outrage is not minor: accepting a “Greater Israel” would mean renouncing the possibility of an independent Palestinian state, already weakened by the continuous expansion of settlements and urban planning projects like the E1 area, which fragment the West Bank and make its territorial continuity unfeasible.

Domestically, Netanyahu’s vision is not without criticism. Analysts and opposition sectors argue that rather than a concrete political plan, it is an ideological discourse aimed at strengthening his support base among ultra-religious and nationalist voters.

From this perspective, “Greater Israel” is more a mobilizing narrative than a feasible project, as it would imply direct clashes with neighboring countries, tensions with international allies, and enormous political and military costs.

Nevertheless, even as rhetoric, its effects are tangible. By legitimizing an expansionist ideology, the policy of faits accomplis on the ground is reinforced: new settlements, demolition of Palestinian homes, and de facto annexations that increasingly reduce the possibilities of a two-state solution. In this sense, the idea of “Greater Israel” is not only projected as a nationalist dream but also as a tool of power with direct consequences for millions of people.

In conclusion, Netanyahu’s “Greater Israel” represents the convergence of religion, ideology, and politics—a concept that resonates with Israel’s historical identity but clashes directly with contemporary geopolitical reality. Beyond whether it is an achievable project or a symbolic declaration, its effects are already felt on the ground, where peace recedes and tensions multiply. The debate over “Greater Israel” is not merely a discussion about maps and borders: it reflects how visions of the past continue to shape present conflicts in the Middle East.