Netanyahu’s embrace of Greater Israel came at a moment of extreme tension. Exploiting the post–October 7 climate, he sought to justify genocide in Gaza and parallel policies of killing and displacement in the West Bank.
On August 12, 2025, during an interview with the ultra-nationalist channel i24 News, host Sharon Gal presented Netanyahu with a pendant engraved with a map of the “Promised Land”—depicting not only occupied Palestine but also parts of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt. Asked if he felt “connected” to this vision, Netanyahu replied firmly: “Very much,” adding that he was carrying out a “historic and spiritual mission” to fulfil the dreams of generations of Jews.
That this exchange was in Hebrew, to a domestic audience, and with a hard-line interviewer, was no accident. It reassured his extremist base and allies such as Smotrich and Ben Gvir that his agenda matches their radical demands.
This rhetoric also aligns with concrete legislative steps. In July 2025, the Knesset voted overwhelmingly in favour of a symbolic resolution backing annexation of the West Bank. This followed Netanyahu’s 2023 law overturning the Gaza disengagement, effectively re-imposing Israeli legal sovereignty over settlements.
Thus, Greater Israel is no longer a slogan; it is the verbal counterpart to creeping annexation on the ground.
For Netanyahu, ideology and pragmatism intersect. He is the heir of Jabotinsky’s Revisionism, which saw current borders as merely a temporary phase toward a larger project. Yet his invocation of Greater Israel also serves short-term political goals: to rally right-wing support as the Gaza war drags on, protests escalate, and his failures mount. It also arms him with leverage in regional diplomacy, particularly over normalisation tracks.
The message is clear: for Netanyahu, the Zionist project remains unfinished, and his pledge to Greater Israel is no mere slogan, but part of a strategic vision nourished by current events and alliances.
Echoes of South Africa? Global Reactions to Netanyahu’s Statement
Netanyahu’s remarks triggered a wave of Arab and Islamic condemnation, reflecting rare consensus in rejecting his expansionist agenda.
- Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt issued strong warnings about the dangers of expansionism for regional security and sovereignty. Cairo, in particular, stressed that any suggestion concerning Sinai was unacceptable, recalling treaty obligations based on border respect.
- The UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco voiced opposition to undermining Palestinian rights and reiterated support for a two-state solution, though in softer diplomatic tones.
- The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) condemned the remarks as a grave provocation, while Palestinian factions underscored that Netanyahu’s words expose the colonial nature of the Zionist project.
By contrast, the international (Western) response was muted. Neither Washington nor Brussels issued strong condemnations, limiting themselves to private “concern”—as though this were an Israeli internal matter or a rhetorical slip.
The hypocrisy is stark. If any non-Israeli leader openly vowed to annex neighbouring lands, the global reaction would be swift—sanctions, isolation, perhaps even military pressure. But when Israel’s Prime Minister does so, silence prevails.
This double standard highlights what Netanyahu’s remarks truly mean: an outright rejection of a Palestinian state, and an ideological affirmation of expansion at the expense of Arab land. To ignore this is to risk its transformation into policy on the ground, as ongoing settlement and annexation prove.
Here arises the question: are condemnations enough? Analysts widely agree the answer is no. Real action is required:
- pushing Israel to retract publicly,
- escalating the matter to the UN Security Council and General Assembly,
- seeking a new advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice based on these statements as evidence of annexation intent,
- and reassessing existing normalisation agreements.
The apartheid history of South Africa offers a lesson. Openly racist statements by its leaders fuelled a global movement of boycott and isolation that eventually dismantled the regime. Today, Netanyahu’s rhetoric hands the BDS movement and its allies powerful material to strengthen the case for Israel as an apartheid state—a conclusion already reached by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
Grave Political and Legal Implications
Despite attempts by some Israeli circles to downplay Netanyahu’s words as a historical allusion, their content violates international law. Annexation and acquisition of land by force are forbidden principles of the global order.
For Israel’s Prime Minister to say he is “deeply connected” to Greater Israel means, in practice, rejecting internationally recognised borders and treating Palestinian presence in the West Bank and Gaza as temporary—destined to vanish under Israeli sovereignty.
Imagine any other leader declaring such aims. The world would not hesitate to impose sanctions or punitive measures. Yet Netanyahu’s statements pass with little consequence, exposing once again the double standards shielding Israel.
The deeper irony is this: Palestinian factions are branded “extremist” when they call for a state from the river to the sea or for refugees’ right of return under UN Resolution 194, while Israel’s Prime Minister openly calls for annexation of vast Arab lands without the same outrage.
This hypocrisy not only destroys the possibility of a just solution; it undermines the very foundations of international law. The occupation thus reveals its true nature: a long-term colonial project that leaves no space for coexistence or genuine peace.
Hence the haunting questions:
- Was peace between Egypt and Israel merely a temporary truce, a strategic deception?
- Were Oslo and Wadi Araba nothing more than waypoints in a broader plan of manipulation?
- Are current and future normalisation projects simply extensions of the same strategy?
If the occupation now shows its face so openly, were not those who rejected the illusion of coexistence correct all along? And is this not a call for the wise to awaken, to unite ranks against an occupation that has declared its colonial essence without shame?
