Kit Klarenberg – The Unz Review Jan 29, 2025

Ever since Tel Aviv’s 1948 creation, much has been said and written about ‘Greater Israel’ – the notion Zionism’s ultimate end goal is the forcible annexation and ethnic cleansing of vast swaths of Arab lands for Jewish settlement, based on Biblical claims that this territory was promised to Jews by God. The media typically dismisses this concept as an antisemitic conspiracy theory or, at most, the fringe fantasy of a minuscule handful of Israelis.

In reality, as The Guardian admitted in 2009, the idea of a Greater Israel has long appealed to “religious and secular right-wing nationalists” alike in Tel Aviv. They have the shared objective of “[seeking] to fulfill divine commandments about the ‘beginning of redemption,’ as well as create ‘facts on the ground’ to enhance Israel’s security.” The outlet acknowledged this motivation was a key contemporary driving force in mainstream Israeli politics, which “effectively turned the Palestinians into aliens on their own soil.”

The Nation has described the push to establish Greater Israel as “the central ideological goal” of Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party, which has dominated Israeli politics in recent decades. In July 2018, Israel passed the “Nation State of the Jewish People” law. It enshrines “the development of Jewish settlement as a national value.” Meanwhile, the state is legally obligated “to encourage and promote” the “establishment and consolidation” of settlements in illegally occupied territory.

This is based on the Jewish people’s “exclusive and inalienable right” to territory as far away from present Israel as Saudi Arabia. Old Testament terms such as “Judea and Samaria” are also employed. Markedly, this text is absent from the legislation’s official English translation. Israeli chiefs may not have wanted to make their irredentist, settler colonial ambitions quite so obvious at the time. Fast forward to now, though, and Zionists at every level are wholly unabashed about their grand expansionist plans in the Middle East.

The Syrian government’s fall has raised questions, concerns, and uncertainties locally and internationally. Can the country survive in its present form? Will Western-backed ‘former’ ultra-extremists be able to run a government? Could the Iran-led Axis of Resistance, which inflicted serious harm to Israel and its Western allies throughout 2023 and 2024, be under threat? The list goes on. But one thing is sure – Israel is seeking to profit handsomely from the chaos, and if successful, the results will be revolutionary.

‘Defensive Position’

On December 8, a triumphant, smart-casual-bedecked Benjamin Netanyahu made a public address from an Israeli Defense Force observation point in the illegally occupied Golan Heights. Taking personal credit for Bashar Assad’s ouster, he hailed “a historic day” for the region, which offered “great opportunity.” The Israeli leader bragged that Israel’s “forceful action against Hezbollah and Iran” had “set off a chain reaction” of upheaval, showing no sign of abating. Nonetheless, he warned of “significant dangers.”

One of those hazards, Netanyahu declared, was “the collapse of the Separation of Forces Agreement from 1974.” This largely forgotten accord was signed by Damascus and Tel Aviv following the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Both sides agreed not to mount hostile military operations of any kind against one another from their shared Golan Heights border. Perhaps surprisingly, it was scrupulously adhered to for 50 years. Now, though, Assad’s fall has sparked a Syrian military withdrawal from the area, and, in turn, the IDF is moving in.

Netanyahu announced that orders had been given to the IDF to push deep into the demilitarized zone created by the Agreement, which is legally and historically Syrian territory. He claimed this was merely a “temporary defensive position until a suitable arrangement is found.” Yet, ever since, it has become increasingly unambiguous that for Israel, Assad’s departure not only greenlights the tearing up of longstanding diplomatic agreements but the entire map of the Middle East as we know it.

For now, the IDF has captured strategically invaluable Mount Hermon, Syria’s tallest mountain, from which Damascus can be seen just 40 miles away. Concurrently, hundreds of Israeli airstrikes have obliterated what remained of Syria’s military infrastructure, leaving the country utterly defenseless from any incursions by air, land, and sea. The stage is set for a major escalation and an attempt by Israel to absorb further territory. Who or what could stop them?

On December 10, while testifying at his long-running corruption trial, Netanyahu used the occasion to hint strongly at Assad’s defeat, heralding a significant reshaping of the region. “Something tectonic has happened here, an earthquake that hasn’t happened in the 100 years since the Sykes-Picot Agreement,” the Israeli leader said, referencing the 1916 treaty under which Britain and France carved up the Ottoman Empire creating a series of new nations in the Middle East.

In an ironic twist, the destruction of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Middle East into artificial boundaries under Western colonial rule, was a regular feature in ISIS propaganda. The group used the pact as a symbol of Western oppression against Islam, presenting its demise as a religious duty. With figures associated with ISIS taking charge in Damascus, that vision could now be achieved, a prospect that would undoubtedly serve Israel’s interests and align with Netanyahu’s long-standing ambitions.

‘Living Room’

Israeli media has undergone a significant tonal shift. Historically, news outlets and journalists in Israel have framed the state’s actions—ranging from operations against neighboring countries to settlement expansion and land confiscation—in terms of “security” and “defense,” even when those actions faced criticism. In the days leading up to Tel Aviv’s invasion of Lebanon on October 1, 2024, The Jerusalem Post published a strikingly candid explainer guide for its readers, enquiring, “Is Lebanon part of Israel’s promised territory?”

The Post leaned on a Brooklyn-based Rabbi to “graciously” explain in detail how based on multiple passages in Jewish scripture, “Lebanon is within the borders of Israel,” and Jews are therefore “obligated and commanded to conquer it.” The article was subsequently deleted after mass backlash and condemnation. But lessons from the debacle evidently weren’t learned in some quarters.

On December 4 – four days before the Syrian government’s fall – The Times of Israel published an op-ed on how “Israel’s exploding population” urgently required “Lebensraum,” a notorious German concept meaning “living room,” typically associated with the Nazis. The piece noted that Israel’s population was projected to grow to 15.2 million by 2048. Tel Aviv’s territory rapidly needed to be expanded – perhaps not to the size of Russia, but certainly considerably.

This extremist rhetoric was likewise purged from the web due to widespread public outcry and mocking. Yet, since the collapse of Assad’s government, the phrase “Greater Israel” has reemerged in Israeli media, with the idea of annexing territory from neighboring countries openly debated on Israeli primetime television. Geopolitical analyst and founder of The Cradle Sharmine Narwani tells MintPress News that, in a way, the blatant nature of these discussions is a welcome development, as it lays bare Israel’s extreme ambitions. However, she warns, attempts to expand Israel’s borders could backfire in catastrophic ways.

The good news is, Israel has completely dropped all its masks. The bad news is it will go for land grabs everywhere. But this will be done opportunistically and without much forethought or strategic planning. In the end, which country besides the US will be able to support Israel publicly? Tel Aviv will corner itself because the dominant Western discourse and EU law are still premised on human rights and ‘rules.’ Allowing Israel these land grabs will also sink the Western-led global order.”

‘Primary Target’

Academic David Miller concurs the mask is off once and for all. Gravely, he tells MintPress News, “The fact that the CIA-backed regime in Damascus is openly saying it is no threat to Israel is another indication regime change in Syria is a planned attempt to destroy the Axis of Resistance, and finally genocide all Palestinians.” Furthermore, he believes the writings of Zionism’s founder, Theodore Herzl, make clear seizing Lebanese and Syrian territory was Israel’s plan all along.

Miller adds that this objective was echoed in the statements of countless prominent Zionists over decades and “even codified and published as the Yinon Plan.” Little known today, this extraordinary document was published in February 1982 in the Hebrew journal Kivunim under the title “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s.” Its title is derived from author Oded Yinon, former Israeli Foreign Ministry official and advisor to Israeli leader Ariel Sharon.

Some sources claim the Yinon Plan provided a blueprint for major future events in the Middle East, such as the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Syrian conflict, and emergence of ISIS. While it might be an exaggeration to claim the plan explicitly predicted these events, its proposals closely mirror developments that later unfolded in the region.

For example, the plan noted the potential for “domestic trouble” to erupt in Syria between “the Sunni majority and the Shiite Alawi ruling minority” – the latter constituting a “mere 12% of the population” – to the extent of “civil war.” While Damascus’ “strong military regime” was considered formidable, Yinon declared “the dissolution of Syria into ethnically or religiously unique areas” and the destruction of its military power as “Israel’s primary target” on its Eastern front.

The plan envisaged similar outcomes for other countries in Israel’s vicinity. Lebanon was to be broken up into “five provinces” along religious and ethnic lines, partition “[serving] as a precedent for the entire Arab world.” Yinon wrote, “This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today.” Four months later, Israel invaded Beirut, carrying out ethnic cleansing, massacres, and land theft along the way.

Once Israel’s immediate neighbors were neutralized, Iraq was placed squarely in the crosshairs. Baghdad, “rich in oil” while “internally torn” between its Sunni and Shiite population, was “guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets.” Its destruction was “even more important for us than that of Syria” due to its “power” and strength relative to other regional adversaries. Yinon hoped the then-ongoing Iran-Iraq war would “tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall,” preventing Baghdad from ‘[organizing] a struggle on a wide front against us”:

Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon…It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization.”

‘Permissive Approach’

Yinon also considered it a “political priority” to regain control of the Sinai peninsula, over which Israel had fought its Arab neighbors since inception, before relinquishing all claims to the region to Egypt under the March 1979 Camp David Accords. He slammed these peace agreements and looked forward to Cairo “[providing] Israel with the excuse [emphasis added] to take the Sinai back into our hands” due to its vast “strategic, economic and energy” value:

The economic situation in Egypt, the nature of the regime and its pan-Arab policy, will bring about a situation after April 1982 in which Israel will be forced to act directly or indirectly in order to regain control over Sinai…for the long run. Egypt does not constitute a military strategic problem due to its internal conflicts and it could be driven back to the post 1967 war situation in no more than one day.”

We are now well past April 1982. In the intervening time, successive Israeli governments have demanded Egypt allow the IDF to relocate Gaza’s population to the Sinai. Netanyahu is particularly taken with the prospect. In the wake of October 7, 2023, the official Israeli government and Zionist think tank policy papers have openly advocated driving Palestinians into the neighboring desert. It has been reported that Israeli officials requested the U.S. to pressure Cairo into allowing this mass displacement.

Since his inauguration, Donald Trump has expressed a keen interest in “[cleaning] out the whole” of Gaza. This would necessitate shunting Palestinians into Jordan and Egypt. Despite opposition even from his allies, widespread condemnation of the plan as grotesque ethnic cleansing, and both target countries rejecting the idea, the new President shows no sign of backing down.

For Israel, this strategy’s appeal is self-evident. On top of emptying Gaza of Palestinians for settlement, forcing countless people into Sinai would inevitably create mass chaos and tensions there, which could, in Yinon’s phrase, provide “the excuse” for Tel Aviv to militarily occupy the region in the manner of the West Bank. Just as a “temporary defensive position until a suitable arrangement is found,” of course, as Netanyahu said of the IDF’s brazen creation of a prospective beachhead on Mount Hermon.

In December 2024, Haaretz observed Netanyahu was “angling for a legacy as the leader who expanded Israel’s borders” and “wants to be remembered as the one who created Greater Israel.” Simultaneously, neoconservative Brookings Institute Vice President Suzanne Maloney wrote for Foreign Affairs that the incoming Trump administration “will surely take a permissive approach to Israeli territorial ambitions.” After all, recent developments showed that “a maximalist military approach yields spectacular strategic dividends along with domestic political benefits” for Israel.

We must hope, as Sharmine Narwani prophesied, that Netanyahu’s megalomaniacal reveries of Greater Israel are just that. Despite understandable mass anti-imperialist mourning over the demise of Assad’s government, Tel Aviv faces a panoply of intractable internal problems. Contrary to claims of Tel Aviv’s population “exploding,” tens of thousands of residents are routinely fleeing due to ongoing attacks on Israel. At the same time, its economy has perhaps permanently been relegated to the doldrums, the country dependent on U.S. largesse to endure.

Source