Israelis

Itamar Greenberg laughed when asked if he thought he should be afraid. The 19-year-old Israeli antiwar activist had just described being spat on in the street and is the target of an online hate campaign.

“Yes!” he finally responded. “If I thought about it, I probably should be. I just don’t have time.”

Voices like Greenberg’s are rare in Israel at a time when public clamour for war is growing, and genocidal language already familiar to millions of Palestinians is reemerging, but with a different target – Iran.

Officially, 11 Israelis have been killed in Iranian strikes since the US and Israel launched their war on Iran on February 28. What the actual number might be, or how many of Iran’s ballistic missiles may have penetrated the country’s Iron Dome defence shield, is unknown.

Speaking at the site of an Iranian missile strike in West Jerusalem, shortly after the start of the US-Israeli attacks on Iran, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu returned to the use of apocalyptic language that has characterised the genocide his country has conducted in Gaza. Comparing Iranians with the Jewish people’s biblical foe, Amalek, who the Jews had been divinely ordered to wipe from the face of the planet, Netanyahu told reporters: “In this week’s Torah portion, we read, “‘Remember what Amalek did to you.’ We remember, and we act.”

So far, Iran claims to have launched strikes across Israel, saying its missiles and drones hit military sites, symbolic infrastructure, and even Netanyahu’s office. Tehran has described the attacks as precise and strategic, rather than indiscriminate and part of a broader regional response. Iran also claims to have targeted locations such as Tel Aviv, Ben Gurion airport and Haifa.

However, Israeli officials have denied many of the specific claims. Netanyahu’s office dismissed Iranian assertions about hitting his office, or affecting his condition, as “fake news”, with stringent reporting restrictions on Iranian strikes within Israel making confirmation either way difficult.

What is clearer is that against the drumbeat of Iranian strikes, the fervour for war appears to be increasing among the public. A poll carried out last week by the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI) suggested overwhelming public support for the war, with 93 percent of Jewish-Israeli respondents expressing support for the strikes on Iran, and 74 percent expressing support for Netanyahu, the country’s historically divisive prime minister.

“No one’s talking about opposition to the war,” Greenberg said, describing an environment in which figures from across Israel’s media and political landscape – with the exception of the left-wing Hadash party and antiwar organisations such as Greenberg’s Mesarvot – had lined up behind the war. “It’s also getting increasingly violent,” he said.

“We held a protest on Tuesday, where the police were already waiting. They beat and arrested us. I was illegally strip-searched,” he said, describing it as efforts intended to humiliate him.

Greenberg is no stranger to such tactics. Six months ago, after being arrested for protesting the genocide in Gaza, prison guards had threatened to carve a Star of David on his face, a permanent reminder of what they thought his priorities should be.

It’s not just antiwar activists who have faced the brunt of the Israeli security establishment’s force.

“The atmosphere is very violent,“ lawmaker Ofer Cassif of the Hadash party told Al Jazeera. “When I leave the house, I’m more worried by the danger posed by a physical attack by fascists than I am by any missile,” he said.

Hadash and lawmakers like Cassif have been targeted by physical threats and attacks throughout the Gaza war. But criticism of the Netanyahu government’s handling of Israeli captives in Gaza meant that opposition to the Gaza war was – comparatively – more socially acceptable. When it comes to Iran, the current climate is toxic, Cassif said.

“We’re often accused of supporting the regime in Tehran,” Cassif explained of the attempts to delegitimise their opposition to the war.

“We’re unequivocally not. We want to see that regime go, but we’re not going to allow Netanyahu to say he’s doing this for the Iranian people. He isn’t. That’s not just rhetoric, that’s fact. The Israeli leadership was just as supportive of the shah as the US, and he was a murderous dictator no less than the current regime,” Cassif said, referring to Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the leader of Iran before the Islamic revolution.

For now, analysts and observers in Israel describe a society that believes it is almost engaged in a holy war.

“They brought an antiwar activist onto one of the light news programmes,” political analyst Ori Goldberg said from near Tel Aviv, “and she was treated like you would a flat-earther. It’s as if it’s inconceivable that anyone would oppose this war.

“Israel has become a society with no middle ground, no capacity for conversation. It’s as if our entire existence is dependent on our ability to do anything we want. And if the world tries to stop that, then the world’s anti-Semitic, and we all burn.”

Recent comments by United States and Israeli officials supporting the concept of a “Greater Israel” have raised alarm bells across the region and shed light on a vision once only rarely publicly spoken about.

An interview aired last week by the American right-wing podcaster Tucker Carlson with US ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee started the current furore. Carlson, an influential figure who has been vocally critical of Israel over the past year, repeatedly asked Huckabee whether he supported Israel controlling all the land between the Nile River in Egypt and the Euphrates River in Iraq.

Huckabee, a Christian Zionist, would not disavow the belief that the Bible promised that land to Israel – even though it now encompasses all or part of Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Syria.

“It would be fine if they took it all,” Huckabee said, leading to anger from those countries and others in the region, many of which are close US allies.

Then, speaking on Monday, Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid said that he would support “anything that will allow the Jews a large, broad, strong land and a safe haven for us”.

“Zionism is based on the Bible. Our mandate over the land of Israel is biblical, [and] the biblical borders of the land of Israel are clear … Therefore, the borders are the borders of the Bible,” the apparently secular Israeli politician said.

So what is Greater Israel exactly? And is it really an ultimate goal for some Israeli politicians?

Defining Greater Israel

The most expansionist claim for a Greater Israel is based on a biblical verse (Genesis 15:18-21), which narrates God making a covenant with Abraham that promises his descendants the land between the Nile and the Euphrates.

That would include the Jewish people, with the tribes of Israel believed to be descended through Abraham’s son, Isaac. But it would also include the children of another of Abraham’s sons, Ishmael (Ismail), regarded as the forefather of the Arabs.

Other definitions based on different biblical verses are narrower in their territorial scope and specify that the land of Israel would be promised to the tribes of Israel descended from Isaac.

How has Israel worked to achieve expansion?

The current state of Israel emerged from the British Mandate for Palestine in 1948. The mandate, created by the League of Nations in the wake of World War I and the occupation of Palestine by the British, geographically limited Israel upon its creation.

The 1948 war that followed the end of the mandate led to Israel taking control of all of Mandatory Palestine, with the exception of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

But Israel soon expanded by force – in 1967 it defeated Arab forces and took control of the West Bank and Gaza, as well as Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, and Syria’s occupied Golan Heights. Israel continues to occupy all of those regions, with the exception of the Sinai, which it returned to Egypt in 1982.

Since then, Israel has ignored international law and continued occupying Palestinian and Syrian land, and has shown little respect for its neighbours’ sovereignty, occupying more land in Syria, as well as in Lebanon.

How popular is the idea of Greater Israel?

This needs to be broken down into two separate concepts – the expansion of Israel into the territory that immediately borders it, and the most extreme definition of Greater Israel: between the Nile and the Euphrates.

In terms of expansion into its immediate surroundings, Israeli Jews by and large support the annexation of East Jerusalem, which is occupied Palestinian territory, and the Golan Heights.

The Israeli government continues to move towards the de facto annexation of the occupied West Bank. Israeli politicians vary in how open they are in their support for the formal annexation of the West Bank, but most mainstream Israeli politicians are supportive of the illegal Israeli settlements in the territory.

An expansion of Israeli settlements into Gaza is not as popular, but is supported by far-right Israeli parties.

A Greater Israel, including parts of Jordan, or the most irredentist definition between the Euphrates and the Nile, is more controversial. Pre-1948, many Zionists sought not just Palestine but also Jordan for their future state – one of the most important Zionist armed groups at the time, the Irgun, even included the map of both Palestine and Jordan in its emblem.

But after the foundation of Israel this took a back seat, and open calls for a vastly expanded Israel were largely restricted to the fringes. But those fringes – far-right figures like Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir – are now in government, reflecting a wider radicalisation within Israeli society itself.

That means the Israeli ‘mainstream’, politicians such as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and centrists like Lapid, are either more open in their support for some form of Greater Israel beyond the West Bank, or less willing to publicly oppose it.

How threatened do regional countries feel?

Regional states have said that the annexation of the West Bank would be a red line, but have been unable to reverse Israel’s occupation.

Hints at a wider expansion have led to an angry reaction from Arab countries. This goes further back than Huckabee’s recent comments. For example, Jordan condemned Smotrich – Israel’s finance minister – when he gave a speech in 2023 at a podium that displayed a map that showed Jordan as part of Israel.

And Huckabee’s support for Greater Israel was roundly condemned by more than a dozen states, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkiye.

For Arab and Muslim states, the anger at the comments partially emanates from the sense of a lack of respect towards the sovereignty of regional states by a US official. But it also highlights fears that the balance of power in the region is weighted towards an Israel that is increasingly willing to attack across the Middle East, and has little interest in peace.

Even if the takeover of the land between the Nile and the Euphrates is not feasible, a region where Israel is the primary hegemon will likely lead to more attacks, more wars, and, if Israel determines it necessary, more occupation of land.