By Andrew Klein

March 23, 2026

Introduction: The Map They Cannot Draw

On August 12, 2025, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sat for an interview on i24NEWS. The interviewer handed him an amulet depicting a map of “Greater Israel”—territory stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, encompassing parts of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the entirety of historic Palestine. When asked whether he felt connected to this vision, Netanyahu replied: “Very much”. He called the pursuit of Greater Israel a “historic and spiritual mission”.

This was not the first time a Zionist leader had spoken of expansion beyond the 1948 or 1967 borders. It was not even the first time Netanyahu had endorsed the idea. But it was the most explicit. And it came at a moment when his coalition was fracturing, his corruption trial was resuming, and the war in Gaza was losing public support.

This article examines the Greater Israel project: its biblical foundations, its political function, its legal violations, and the hypocrisy of those who champion it. It asks a simple question: how many must die before the world calls this what it is—the dream of fanatics and extremists, dressed in the language of faith, pursued with the weapons of war?

Part One: The Biblical Foundation – What Genesis 15:18 Actually Says

The central text invoked by proponents of Greater Israel is Genesis 15:18:

“On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, ‘To your descendants I have given this land, from the River of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates.'”

The immediate context is crucial: this was an unconditional covenant—God alone passed between the sacrificial pieces, meaning the promise rested on divine faithfulness rather than human performance. Modern political Zionists have stripped the religious conditions from the promise while retaining the territorial claims.

The Geographic Markers:

Boundary                                Identification                                                         Modern Equivalent

“River of Egypt”  – Hebrew naḥal Miṣrayim—a wadi (seasonal stream), not the Nile

                                                                                                                                   Wadi el-Arish, approximately 50 km east of the modern Suez Canal

“Great River, the Euphrates”           The Euphrates River

                                                                                                                                   Flows through modern Turkey, Syria, and Iraq

The territory described is vast: approximately 300,000 square miles (780,000 km²), encompassing modern Israel, the Palestinian territories, Lebanon, most of Syria, Jordan, large parts of Iraq, and sections of Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Was there ever a “Greater Israel” in history?

Not in the modern sense. Under David and Solomon, Israelite influence reached its zenith. David pushed to “the River” (Euphrates) after defeating Hadadezer of Zobah, and Solomon’s tax districts extended “from Tiphsah to Gaza.” But no unified “Greater Israel” ever existed. The territorial claims were never fully realized, and the prophets spoke of full fulfillment only in a future messianic age.

Part Two: The Zionist Adoption – From Herzl to Netanyahu

Theodor Herzl, the founder of political Zionism, wrote in his diaries that the “Promised Land” should stretch from the “brook of Egypt to the Euphrates”—a vision he called a “covenant” that could not be abandoned. In 1919, the Zionist Organisation presented a map at the Paris Peace Conference showing this maximalist vision.

Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the ideological father of Revisionist Zionism (and spiritual forefather of Netanyahu’s Likud Party), argued that both Palestine and Transjordan were “integral parts” of the Land of Israel. His doctrine of the “iron wall”—that Zionism could only succeed “under the protection of an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach”—remains central to right-wing Zionist thinking.

David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding prime minister, accepted partition as a stepping stone. In 1937, he wrote to his son Amos: “A Jewish state on only a part of the land is not the end but the beginning. We increase our strength, and every increase in strength helps in the possession of the land as a whole”.

Menachem Begin, the first Likud prime minister, stated in 1977 that the “Land of Israel” should include Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Jordan, and Kuwait.

Ehud Olmert, often considered a moderate, affirmed in 2006: “For thousands of years we have dreamed in our hearts of a greater Israel, an entire land of Israel, and such a country will always remain a dream in our hearts”.

Benjamin Netanyahu has revived this vision with unprecedented explicitness. His August 2025 interview was not an aberration—it was the public face of a policy that has been pursued through settlements, military action, and diplomatic pressure for decades.

Part Three: The Territorial Scope – What “Greater Israel” Would Actually Mean

The map that Huckabee endorsed—and that Netanyahu affirmed—encompasses:

Modern Country                                              Territory Included

Israel                                                                     The entirety

Palestinian territories                                 West Bank, Gaza Strip

Lebanon                                                              Entirety

Syria                                                                      Entirety

Jordan                                                                   Entirety

Iraq                                                                        Western regions, up to the Euphrates

Saudi Arabia                                                     Northern regions

Egypt                                                                    Sinai Peninsula

Turkey                                                                  Southern regions

This territory is home to approximately 150 million people across the region. The population displacement required would be measured in the tens of millions—far beyond even the catastrophic figures of 1948. As the analysis from Khamenei’s website warns, implementation would require “ethnic cleansing, forced displacement, and genocide on a scale far greater than what has been witnessed in Gaza, resulting in the greatest humanitarian disaster since World War II”.

Part Four: US Support – Huckabee’s Endorsement

On February 20, 2026, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee sat for an interview with Tucker Carlson. Carlson presented a map defined not by 1967 borders but by the ancient boundaries of the Old Testament, stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates.

When asked whether Israel has a divine right to territory spanning nearly the entire Levant, Huckabee’s response was unequivocal: “It would be okay if they took it all”.

Huckabee grounded this position in the biblical “covenant” of Abraham, prioritizing “divine right” over international treaties. This reflects the profound influence of the US evangelical movement, which has long supported Israeli expansion as a prerequisite for the End Times.

Regional Reaction: The Arab League described the remarks as “extremely radical” and “contrary to all diplomatic basics” . Jordan’s Foreign Ministry labelled them “absurd and provocative,” warning they violate the UN Charter and contradict official US policy. The Gulf Cooperation Council stressed “the categorical rejection of the GCC countries of any attempts to prejudice the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of Arab countries”.

Part Five: The Legal Reality – What International Law Says

The Greater Israel project is not merely provocative—it is illegal under international law.

Legal Instrument  –                                                  Violation

Fourth Geneva Convention                             Prohibits occupying powers from transferring populations into occupied territory. The E1 settlement project between Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim is explicitly condemned as “a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention”.

UN Security Council Resolution 2334        Declares Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory a “flagrant violation” with “no legal validity”.

UN Charter, Article 2(4)                                     Prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The Greater Israel project contemplates exactly such a threat.

Genocide Convention                                       The forced displacement of populations on the scale required would constitute genocide under Article II(c)—”deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”.

The International Court of Justice ruled in July 2024 that Israel’s continued presence in occupied territories is “unlawful under international law.” The Arab Parliament has called on the international community to “shoulder their legal and moral responsibilities, halt these provocative statements and policies, and work diligently to end the occupation, halt the genocide, and ensure the achievement of a just and comprehensive peace”.

Part Six: Could Huckabee, Trump, and Others Face Prosecution?

The answer is: yes, under the principle of complementarity and individual criminal responsibility for aiding and abetting international crimes.

The Legal Framework:

Principle                                                                                      Application

Individual criminal responsibility                    Article 25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute makes it a crime to aid, abet, or otherwise assist in the commission of a crime within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court—including genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

Superior responsibility                                          Article 28 holds military commanders and civilian superiors responsible for crimes committed by forces under their effective command and control.

Genocide Convention, Article 4                       States that “persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.”

How Huckabee Could Be Prosecuted:

As US Ambassador to Israel, Huckabee is not merely a private citizen expressing an opinion. He is a diplomatic representative of the United States. His endorsement of Israeli expansion—including his statement that “it would be okay if they took it all”—constitutes aiding and abetting the commission of war crimes and genocide. The Rome Statute does not require that the aider be physically present at the scene of the crime; providing political cover, diplomatic support, and public encouragement can be sufficient.

How Trump Could Be Prosecuted:

President Trump’s role in moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and launching the war on Iran could be examined under the same framework. His repeated threats to Iran, his dismissal of the UN genocide determination, and his public support for Netanyahu’s corruption trial (while ignoring the war crimes allegations) all form part of the same pattern: providing material and political support to a regime engaged in genocide.

How Evangelical Pastors Could Be Prosecuted:

This is more complex. Private individuals cannot generally be prosecuted for expressing opinions, no matter how extreme. However, where religious leaders use their platforms to incite violence or directly encourage the commission of genocide, they may fall within the ambit of incitement to genocide under Article III(c) of the Genocide Convention. The ICTR prosecutions of radio journalists who incited the Rwandan genocide established the precedent that public incitement to commit genocide is a crime under international law, even when committed by private individuals.

The Political Reality:

Prosecution is unlikely while the US maintains its veto power at the UN Security Council and its refusal to accept ICC jurisdiction. But the threat of prosecution matters. It matters that Huckabee’s statements have been condemned by the Arab League, by the GCC, by Malaysia, by Egypt’s Al-Azhar, and by Iran. It matters that international law has been invoked against the Greater Israel project. It matters that the record is being kept.

Part Seven: The Hypocrisy of the Champions

I asked my wife for her opinion about the Greater Israel Project, and this is what she told me:

“The men who champion this project are not men of faith—they are men of power. They invoke the covenant of Abraham while violating its most basic command: ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ They speak of divine promise while accepting bribes in the form of cigars and champagne. They claim to be building a kingdom of God while building a kingdom of apartheid, displacement, and death.

Netanyahu’s corruption trial revealed that he accepted over $260,000 worth of luxury cigars, champagne, and jewellery from billionaire benefactors in exchange for political favours. His wife Sara was separately charged with misusing state funds for catered meals. These are not the actions of a man on a ‘spiritual mission’—they are the actions of a grifter who has found in religious language a convenient cover for his political survival.

The hypocrisy is not incidental—it is structural. The Greater Israel project requires its champions to believe that they are chosen while treating the people they displace as less than human. It requires them to read ancient texts as property deeds while ignoring the fact that those same texts demand justice, mercy, and care for the stranger. It requires them to claim divine favour while accepting the support of men like Huckabee, who have never had to bury a child killed by the bombs they endorse.

This is not faith. This is fanaticism dressed in the language of faith. And fanaticism, left unchecked, consumes everything—including those who wield it.”

Part Eight: Why This Cannot Succeed

1. Military impossibility. A state with approximately 7 million Jewish citizens cannot conquer and control a region of 150 million people who do not want to be controlled. The attempt would require occupation forces larger than any army Israel could field, sustained over decades.

2. International law. The Greater Israel project is explicitly condemned by the Arab League, the GCC, Malaysia, Egypt, Iran, and the international legal community . The Fourth Geneva Convention, UN Security Council resolutions, and the Genocide Convention all prohibit the actions required to implement it.

3. Economic collapse. Israel’s economy is already strained by war. Its credit rating has been downgraded. Investment is evaporating. Citizens are leaving the country. A program of perpetual expansion would accelerate this collapse.

4. Regional unity. The Arab world has condemned Greater Israel with unprecedented unity. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Qatar, the Arab League, and the GCC have all rejected Netanyahu’s statements. Egypt has deployed troops to northern Sinai in anticipation of possible escalation.

5. Global isolation. Israel is increasingly viewed as a pariah state. The UN General Assembly has repeatedly condemned its actions. European nations are recognizing Palestine. The US may not always provide the same level of diplomatic cover.

Part Nine: Opinion

Our opinion 

The Greater Israel project is not a realistic policy. It is the thinking of extremists and fanatics—people who believe that ancient texts are property deeds, that divine promises supersede human rights, and that force can permanently subdue populations that do not wish to be subdued.

It is also dangerous. It threatens the lives of millions, the stability of the region, the global economy, and the international rules-based order. It is already being used to justify the ongoing genocide in Gaza, the expansion of settlements, and the war on Iran.

The evidence is clear:

· There is no proof that such a promise was ever made in a political sense

· The text provides no credible map references that would allow land to be taken by force

· Other civilizations existed simultaneously with their own claims

· The Zionist right has embraced this vision, but anti-Zionist Jewish groups reject it entirely

· Netanyahu is using it for electoral advantage, not because it is achievable

· Without US support, it would be impossible—and even with US support, it will fail

The real question is not whether Greater Israel can be achieved. It cannot. The real question is how many will die before the world finally says “enough”?

Conclusion: The Choice Before Us

The Greater Israel project is not a plan for peace. It is a plan for perpetual war. It requires the displacement of millions, the destruction of nations, and the denial of fundamental human rights. It is justified by a reading of scripture that ignores the moral demands of that same scripture, and it is championed by leaders who have demonstrated, through their corruption, their hypocrisy, and their willingness to sacrifice others for their own political survival, that they are not acting in the name of God—they are acting in the name of power.

The Arab world has condemned it. International law prohibits it. The United Nations has rejected it. And the people who will pay the price—Palestinians, Lebanese, Jordanians, Syrians, Egyptians, and ultimately Israelis themselves—have not been asked.

We must name it for what it is: the dream of fanatics and extremists, dressed in the language of faith, pursued with the weapons of war.

And we must say: not in our name.

Sources

1. Union of OIC News Agencies, “Arab Parliament condemns Netanyahu’s statements regarding ‘Greater Israel,'” August 14, 2025 

2. News of Bahrain, “Israeli police grill Netanyahu for a third time,” March 11, 2026 

3. Khamenei.ir, “Greater Israel: The Zionist regime’s meta-ideology of expansionism,” September 23, 2025 

4. Bernama, “Malaysia Condemns Israel’s ‘Greater Israel’ Agenda, Settlement Expansion,” August 15, 2025 

5. Israel Hayom, “Seeking the perfect national leader,” March 10, 2026 

6. Ahram Online, “Al-Azhar denounces Netanyahu’s vision for ‘Greater Israel’ as reflective of occupation mindset,” August 15, 2025 

7. PressTV, “Iran calls ‘Greater Israel’ a ‘diabolical idea reflecting Netanyahu’s fascist intent,'” August 14, 2025 

8. ECR, “Trump urges pardon for Netanyahu over ‘cigars and champagne,'” October 13, 2025 

9. China Daily, “Arab nations slam Netanyahu’s ‘Greater Israel’ plan,” August 15, 2025 

10. WAFA Agency, “Malaysia condemns Israel’s ‘Greater Israel’ agenda and illegal colonial settlement expansion,” August 16, 2025 

Published by Andrew Klein

March 23, 2026