In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the young scientist is dismayed when the sapient creature he puts together and nurtures, brutally turns on him. It’s difficult to find a more apt analogy when we observe how the next chapter of the Zionist project is unfolding.
When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sat down for a recent interview on i24News, few expected him to resurrect one of the most controversial ideas in modern Zionism. Yet, when asked whether he still felt “attached” to the vision of a Greater Israel, the Prime Minister smiled and replied: “Very much.” [1]
The words hit like a thunderclap. This was no fringe activist whispering about lost empires — this was the sitting prime minister of an occupying entity, openly affirming a concept that many in the West had dismissed as a relic of 20th century Zionism. It caused such alarm that Jordan has reintroduced military conscription after 34 years.
But what exactly does “Greater Israel” mean, why does it matter, and why do both Washington and Arab capitals seem so willing to look the other way?
An Idea with Deep Roots
The notion of “Greater Israel” is not a monolith. At its broadest, religious-nationalist readings reach back to biblical promises — “from the Nile to the Euphrates”— a map so expansive it would cut across half the modern Middle East.
The political version, however, crystallized after the Six-Day War of 1967. Israel’s lightning victory brought the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, Sinai, and the Golan Heights under its control. For many Israelis, this was not conquest but redemption. Movements like Gush Emunim declared it a divine signal that Judea and Samaria (the biblical names for the West Bank) were no longer negotiable. Eretz Yisrael Hashlema, the “Whole Land of Israel,” meant holding on to the West Bank, and in some visions, Gaza and the Golan Heights. [2]
Movements like Gush Emunim gave this theology flesh and blood in the 1970s, planting outposts on West Bank hills and arguing that sovereignty there was not a choice but a divine obligation. Revisionist Zionism had laid the groundwork earlier — Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s famous “Iron Wall” essay argued that only unshakable strength would ever win Arab acceptance. [3]
Even mainstream politics was touched. Likud’s early party program stated bluntly that Israeli sovereignty extended “between the Jordan and the sea.” Labor, less theological, produced the “Allon Plan,” which argued for strategic retention of the Jordan Valley to secure “defensible borders.”[4]
Why Pursue It — and Why Hide It?
The motivations have always been layered. For some Israelis, the draw is biblical destiny — Judea and Samaria are not just geography but sacred inheritance. For others, it is hard-nosed security logic: holding the mountain ridges of the West Bank keeps Israel’s vulnerable coastal plain, home to Tel Aviv and Ben-Gurion Airport, safe from artillery or invasion.
Yet overt declarations of annexation carried risks. Israel’s leaders learned to speak softly, while acting boldly. The mantra became: say less, do more.
In the 1980s. Ariel Sharon championed the creation of settlement “blocs” that would make Palestinian contiguity impossible.[5] In the 1990s, while the Oslo Accords spoke of “final status negotiation,” settler populations quietly doubled. But the real turning point came in 2023–24, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, himself a settler leader, was handed sweeping control over West Bank planning. Outposts were legalized, new tenders issued, and Israeli law increasingly applied — a process foreign analysts described as “annexation by paperwork.” [6]
In 2025, Netanyahu’s government even revived the long-frozen E1 corridor east of Jerusalem, a move that European diplomats openly warned would make a contiguous Palestinian state impossible. [7]
This is how the dream of “Greater Israel” has advanced: not with grand speeches, but with steady steps on the ground.
Washington’s Double Game
Official US policy remains fixed: no annexation, two states, Jerusalem as a shared capital. This is the language you will hear from the State Department, from Joe Biden, from decades of American diplomacy.
However, inside the US, power is divided. The Republican Party removed the two-state solution from its platform in 2016, signalling full ideological support for Israel’s right-wing. Evangelical lobbies have gone further, championing Jewish sovereignty over the biblical heartland as part of a religious vision.
Democrats, meanwhile, are split. The leadership insists on a two-state horizon, but younger voices, shocked by Gaza and West Bank violence, are increasingly hostile to Israeli policy.
The result is a paradox: American governments condemn settlement expansion, even as American politics bankrolls and emboldens it. Billions in aid flow with few conditions. Vetoes at the UN shield Israel from consequences. And bipartisan lawmakers visit settlements even when official policy deems them illegal.
Why Arab Rulers Stay Silent
If “Greater Israel” inherently threatens Arab borders, why would regional leaders tolerate it — even shake hands with the men who champion it?
The answer lies in regime survival calculus. For Egypt and Jordan, peace treaties with Israel unlocked billions in US aid and long-term security guarantees. For Gulf states, normalisation meant access to Israeli technology and tighter defense cooperation against Iran. The UAE signed the Abraham Accords in 2020 and expanded trade with Israel even as Gaza burned; Emirati elites care more about diversifying their economies than defending Ramallah.[8]
Saudi Arabia has even entertained talks of recognition in exchange for a U.S. defense pact and nuclear assistance — a breathtaking shift for the Arab world’s heavyweight. Arab rulers know their populations are overwhelmingly opposed. But in their cold calculation, Iran, money, and Washington matter more than Palestine.
Unlocking the Mystery
Netanyahu’s open embrace of “Greater Israel” has pulled back the curtain. For decades, the agenda advanced in silence: more settlements, more roads, more laws extended into occupied territory, while diplomats kept talking about a peace process that no longer exists.
Now the mask has slipped. Washington is divided, Arab capitals are calculating, and on the ground, the facts of annexation deepen. Whether called “Greater Israel” or “Whole Land,” the vision is alive — not as rhetoric, but as reality. As support for Israel wanes drastically among younger American voters, Israelis know they are in a race against time to force their agenda.
The real mystery is not why Israelis pursue it, but why so many powerful actors — whose own survival will now be on the line — still pretend it isn’t happening. When Dr. Frankenstein reprimands his monster after it murders his brother, the monster offers an articulate response followed by a final threat, “I will be with you on your wedding night.” With talks of Greater Israel louder than ever, the Arab regimes that protect and nurture their own monster, have been told the same.
[2] Eretz Israel HaShlema / Greater Israel / “from the Nile to the
[3] Iron Wall
[4] Original Party Platform of the Likud Party
[5] Sharon pledges to expand in West Bank | Israel | The Guardian
[6] Israeli settlement plans will ‘bury’ idea of Palestinian state, minister says – BBC News
[7] E1 (West Bank) – Wikipedia
[8] Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement – Wikipedia
