Israel's dream of river to the sea is dangerous

In 1919, the Zionist Organisation arrived at the Paris Peace Conference with a bold map showing a “Promised Land” stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates—a territorial ambition dismissed then as fantasy. Over a century later, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has breathed new life into that dream. Speaking to i24NEWS on 12 August whilst holding an amulet of this “Promised Land,” he declared himself “very attached” to the idea of “Greater Israel from the river to the sea,” calling it both a historic and spiritual mission.

This seemingly innocuous phrase carries profound implications. “From the river to the sea” refers to the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, encompassing both Israel and all occupied Palestinian territories. For the millions of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, Netanyahu’s vision spells nothing less than the permanent denial of their right to self-determination and the complete burial of any two-state solution.

The concept finds its roots in Genesis 15:18-21, which speaks of land “from the brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.” Over centuries, this biblical narrative has evolved into the political doctrine of Eretz Yisrael HaShlema—Greater Israel—encompassing not only Palestinian territories but potentially vast areas including parts of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Türkiye, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. What began as religious scripture has become a political programme with immediate, tangible consequences.

Netanyahu’s timing reveals calculated political strategy. Facing domestic criticism over the Gaza war and dependent on far-right coalition partners, he increasingly relies on settler movements and religious nationalists for whom Greater Israel represents a non-negotiable goal. This rhetoric translates directly into policy: Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s recent approval of 3,400 new settlement units—openly intended to “bury the idea of a Palestinian state”—demonstrates how biblical aspirations become concrete realities on the ground.

The international legal framework stands firmly against such ambitions. The International Court of Justice ruled definitively in July 2024 that Israel’s continued presence in occupied territories is “unlawful under international law.” UN Security Council Resolution 2334 declared Israeli settlements a “flagrant violation” with “no legal validity,” whilst the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly prohibits occupying powers from transferring populations into occupied territory. Netanyahu’s Greater Israel would openly defy these established principles.

Regional powers have responded with unprecedented unity in condemnation. Saudi Arabia denounced the “settlement and expansionist ideas,” whilst the Arab League characterised them as “aggressive intentions rooted in colonial delusions.” Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, and the Palestinian Authority issued sharp protests, with Jordan warning of “dangerous and provocative escalation.” Even the traditionally cautious Gulf Cooperation Council condemned the vision as a “flagrant violation of the UN Charter.” For Gulf states, including Oman, these developments transcend the Palestinian question to challenge fundamental diplomatic principles. Oman’s long standing advocacy for dialogue, mutual respect, and just peace stands in stark contrast to unilateral measures that entrench occupation and inflame regional tensions. The implications extend beyond immediate territorial disputes to threaten the post-war international order based on territorial integrity and peaceful resolution of conflicts.

Should Netanyahu’s vision succeed, it would establish a dangerous precedent for territorial expansion through force, potentially encouraging other powers to pursue similar fait accompli strategies. The erosion of international law in one context inevitably weakens its authority everywhere, threatening the rules-based system that has underpinned global stability for generations.

Netanyahu frames his mission as historic and spiritual, yet history warns against unchecked territorial ambitions. The map once dismissed as unrealistic has become a political blueprint with real consequences for millions. The international community now faces a defining choice: acquiesce to the systematic dismantling of Palestinian rights and international law, or take decisive action to preserve the principles upon which regional peace depends.

Empty condemnations will no longer suffice. The cost of inaction extends beyond Palestinian suffering to encompass the broader collapse of legal frameworks that protect all nations from aggressive expansion. The moment for coordinated, meaningful intervention has arrived—before biblical dreams become irreversible nightmares for regional stability.

Badr al Dhafari
The writer is head of proofreading, translation at Oman Observer