Netanyahu’s 'Greater Israel' dream marks a dangerous ideological shift

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his then-defence minister, Yitzhak Mordechai, at the Alfei Menashe settlement in 1997. AFP

As the world gets ready to debate the notion of Palestinian statehood during this year’s session of the UN General Assembly, it is worth looking at what statehood means exactly to the country opposing it the most – Israel.

Last month, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed support for the idea of “Greater Israel” in an interview with an Israeli journalist. This was probably not a moment of shallow political flourish or even a cynical ploy to strengthen his bargaining position in negotiations over Palestinian statehood. Instead, it signalled a deeper ideological shift: a conscious effort to entrench Zionism within a biblical framework that elevates Jews as the “chosen people of God” and relegates not just Palestinians, but Israel’s other Arab neighbours, to a lower status.

This matters profoundly. For decades, the definition of Zionism has been interpreted religiously or secularly, depending on the proponent or the audience. In both cases, it involves providing a homeland for the Jewish people in the area of the Levant claimed by both Palestinians and Israelis. In the secular reading, championed by some of the attendees of the Zionist Congress in the late 19th century, this meant establishing a Jewish homeland that could be recognised by the international community within the framework of international law.

In a purely religious reading, the only basis for defining a Jewish homeland is Jewish religious texts, which naturally did not factor in the contexts of today’s politics and borders. Some have therefore interpreted the idea of a Jewish homeland to be not Israel, but a “Greater Israel” that stretches far beyond the current borders – even, in extreme readings, into Syria and Iraq.

Over the past 80 years of the State of Israel’s existence, its leaders have had to balance between these two visions, alternate between them in different contexts or maintain ambiguity. But few have dared to entertain expansionism beyond Palestine into other established, sovereign states.

Israel's Smotrich approves settlement in bid to 'bury' idea of Palestinian state

01:25

Mr Netanyahu has, and he is doing so at one of the most sensitive times. By openly rooting Israel’s legitimacy in biblical claims now, at a time when the country’s military has gone into new territory in Syria and Lebanon - and is preparing to conquer much of Gaza perhaps permanently, he is staking a maximalist position on territory. When viewed in the context of his premiership leaning on ultra-right-wing religious zealots to survive, one could reasonably argue that he is also attempting to define the ideological foundations of Zionism in an exclusively religious vein.

His goal seems clear: to shape the consciousness of future generations around an expansive, religiously charged narrative of Jewish destiny.

But Israel does not exist solely in a religious sense in the minds of the devout – it exists in the broader world and within the community of states. As a result, such rhetoric carries consequences. First, it runs directly against international law, which recognises Palestinian rights under occupation. Second, it reinforces the perception that Israel is committed not to compromise, but to an uncompromising, expansionist vision rooted in religion.

Western states have long championed secular nation-states over religious ones, and they tend to regard religiously based expansionism as nothing but extremist. And yet, the international response – especially in the West – to talk of “Greater Israel” from the Prime Minister was tepid at best.

That is hardly surprising. The nuances of Zionism are rarely debated by western governments – it is often viewed as a monolithic slogan that should enjoy nothing but support. Official reactions to provocative Israeli statements often fall within a political equation that prioritises strategic alignment over principle. As the late Egyptian president Anwar Sadat once remarked, the October 1973 war was as much a confrontation with the US as with Israel itself.

Netanyahu may be attempting to define the ideological foundations of Zionism in an exclusively religious vein

The risks of Mr Netanyahu’s approach are multidimensional. For Palestinians and Arabs, it signals the entrenchment of a zero-sum conflict in which their existence and rights are denied by religious decree. For Israel, it deepens internal fractures between secular and religious communities, between those who want a democratic, inclusive state and those who envision an ethno-religious fortress. Internationally, it heightens the danger of eventual isolation, particularly if global power dynamics shift away from Israel’s traditional backers.

The question, then, is how the Arab world should respond. Condemnations and rhetorical solidarity with Palestinians are insufficient. Mr Netanyahu is playing a long game, investing his ideology in Israel’s identity, ideology and education. Countering this requires an equally long-term and multidimensional Arab strategy.

That means Israel’s immediate neighbours not only strengthening military and diplomatic tools but also investing seriously in education, technology, economic growth and cultural confidence. Power in the 21st century is not measured only in armies or alliances, but also in the capacity of societies to adapt, innovate and inspire. The Arab world has great examples of constructive efforts for human developments, from within the region itself. Just look at the great investments in AI and advance technologies, for instance, in the UAE and Saudi Arabia, not to mention the focus on economy and innovations in other Gulf countries.

The Arab states cannot afford to view Mr Netanyahu’s “Greater Israel” rhetoric as mere bluster. It reflects an ideological project that could shape the region’s politics for decades. If left unanswered, it risks normalising a narrative that excludes Arabs entirely from the historical and moral map of the land. The appropriate response lies in building resilient, forward-looking societies that can assert their presence with confidence – not only resisting Israel’s ideological project but also presenting a competing vision of progress, justice and co-existence.

History offers a sobering lesson: grand ideological projects often collapse when confronted by societies that are united, dynamic and self-assured. Mr Netanyahu may dream of “Greater Israel”, but the future of the Middle East will be determined by whether the region’s Arab states can rise to meet the challenge – by investing in their people, shaping their narratives and refusing to cede the ideological battlefield.