Israel’s expansionist agenda may be a grand biblical promise to the Jews having immense geopolitical significance, but its realization is hardly impossible. The challenges posed to the materialization of this concept are eroding sovereignty of nation states, collapse of diplomatic relations, change of demography, domestic opposition, ethical or moral reservations, downgrading democratic values and international law and most importantly an anarchic and destructive middle eastern region. This concept can be traced to biblical descriptions of the land promised to the Jewish people, particularly in Genesis, which includes regions from the Nile to the Euphrates. Greater Israel is often linked with the annexation of the Egypt, West Bank, Gaza, parts of KSA, entire Jordan, Southern part of Lebanon and some of Syria, based on historical claims and nationalistic ambitions. The idea of Greater Israel has always been a divisive and highly charged subject, stirring intense debates within Israel, the region, and the international community. While the notion holds symbolic and historical weight for some, its feasibility remains questionable in modern geopolitics.

One of the biggest challenges to the idea of Greater Israel lies in international law and the global diplomatic landscape. The annexation of territories such as the West Bank and other neighboring regions would likely violate multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions, particularly Resolution 242, which emphasizes the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, which was adopted after the 1967 Six-Day War. It calls for Israel’s withdrawal from territories occupied during the conflict. Subsequent resolutions and international conventions reinforce this view, treating any unilateral territorial claims by Israel as violations of established international norms. The lack of international recognition, along with the legal frameworks restricting territorial expansion, serves as a significant roadblock to realizing the idea of Greater Israel. The diplomatic costs are high, as any moves toward expansion would likely lead to sanctions, increased isolation, and potential shifts in alliances, particularly with key actors in the Middle East and among emerging powers. This international diplomatic landscape, combined with pressures for a two-state solution, reflects the obstacles faced by any aspirations toward a Greater Israel.

Israel’s declaration of sovereignty over expanded borders would face near-unanimous opposition from the international community. The UN, Arab League, European Union, and many other entities have already expressed strong objections to any potential Israeli annexation moves. Additionally, even Israel’s closest ally, the United States, has shown hesitancy toward backing annexation efforts that violate the international consensus for a two-state solution. Implementing Greater Israel would likely lead to sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and a collapse in Israeli-Arab relations, all of which are crucial for the nation’s economic and security interests.

Another critical issue with the Greater Israel concept is the regional instability it would likely provoke. Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza are already in a state of conflict with Israel, and further territorial expansion would provide these groups with even more ammunition for resistance. This could also potentially draw in larger powers, such as Iran, which remains hostile to Israel. Middle Eastern politics are already fraught with tensions and the annexation of Palestinian territories or other Arab lands would only exacerbate the conflict. Such an action could fuel anti-Israeli sentiments not just in Palestine but across the Arab world, leading to protests, uprisings, and possibly even regional war. The idea of Greater Israel could be a recipe for disaster in an already volatile region, leading to perpetual conflict and destruction.

The demographic makeup of the region also poses a significant challenge to the concept of Greater Israel. If Israel were to annex the West Bank, Gaza, and other territories, it would either have to grant citizenship to millions of Palestinians or rule them without political rights. Both options present existential dilemmas for the state of Israel itself. If Israel incorporates these populations and grants them full citizenship, it risks losing its identity as a Jewish-majority state due to the high birth rates among Palestinians. This demographic shift could fundamentally alter the nation’s Jewish character and possibly create a binational state rather than a Jewish state. Alternatively, if Israel refuses to grant citizenship, it would face widespread accusations of apartheid, deepening its international isolation and complicating its relationships with other democracies.

Also, there exists domestic opposition with regards to the concept of Greater Israel. Some Jews think that the idea of Greater Israel is far from universal acceptance. However, some right-wing groups and religious Zionists advocate for annexation. A majority of Israeli politicians recognize that annexation without a comprehensive peace plan would ignite new conflicts and endanger the country’s security. Israel’s political spectrum is divided on how to handle the West Bank, with some advocating for a two-state solution and others pushing for annexation of key areas. Given these divisions, any move toward Greater Israel would likely face significant domestic opposition, protests, and possibly even civil unrest.

Beyond the logistical and political challenges, the idea of Greater Israel raises profound ethical questions. The forced annexation of land and the subjugation of people run counter to the principles of self-determination, which Israel itself espouses. Imposing Israeli rule over millions of Palestinians without their consent or granting them equal rights would violate basic democratic and human rights principles. Furthermore, the occupation of Palestinian territories and the on-going genocidal acts of Israel in Palestine and Lebanon, is a source of moral anguish for many Israelis and Jews worldwide. The pursuit of a Greater Israel would likely exacerbate these tensions, as it could mean permanently disenfranchising a significant population or displacing them, leading to ethnic cleansing.

The economic burden of annexing and controlling additional territories would be enormous. Israel would have to allocate significant resources to policing, infrastructure and public services for newly incorporated territories, especially in the face of likely resistance and unrest. The costs of maintaining military control over hostile populations would further strain Israel’s budget, especially at a time when its resources are already stretched by military conflicts and wars at different fronts.

As long as U.S. backs Israel with all its capacities, there is no stepping back for Israel. However, if Israel continues to opt its expansionist agenda; this time, it will also face resistance from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and Iran, obviously. Israel must understand either by choice or forcibly that the long-term security and prosperity are more likely to be achieved through negotiated peace and coexistence with its neighbors, not through territorial expansion. The vision of Greater Israel belongs to a bygone era and any attempts to revive it would likely plunge the region into further chaos, making it an unwise and unfeasible ambition in the 21st century.