Netanyahu and "greater Israel": Illusion vs. international law
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly made statements regarding the so-called 'Greater Israel' project. This rhetoric is part of a political discourse based on expanding Israeli influence at the expense of neighboring countries, including Jordan and Egypt, while consolidating full control over the occupied Palestinian territories. These statements do not merely represent a passing political position; they constitute a clear violation of international conventions and a serious threat to the fragile peace process in the region.
Since the signing of the Wadi Araba Treaty in 1994 between Jordan and Israel, clear foundations have been established governing the relationship between the two parties, based on respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, and a commitment by both parties not to engage in any hostile acts or threat of the use of force. Article 3 of the treaty clearly stipulates mutual recognition of sovereignty and internationally recognized borders, while Article 5 prohibits any derogation of the rights of or direct threat to the two states. Netanyahu's statements about 'Greater Israel' constitute a direct violation of these provisions, as they imply the possibility of territorial expansion at the expense of Jordan and Egypt, which contradicts the spirit and text of the treaty. Jordan, which has for decades committed to peace and respect for understandings, finds itself today confronted with Israeli rhetoric that undermines the fundamentals of that treaty and opens the door to regional crises that could threaten stability and collective security.
Public international law sets red lines for any state's attempts to expand at the expense of its neighbors. Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter explicitly prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. This means that any attempt by Israel to promote the idea of 'Greater Israel' or link it to policies on the ground is considered a flagrant violation of international law.
The Geneva Conventions and human rights covenants also provide protection for peoples under occupation and criminalize settlements and the confiscation of land by force. Accordingly, Israel's policies, based on imposing a fait accompli in the Palestinian territories, contradict the peremptory norms of international law, which no state may violate or invoke local agreements to circumvent.
On the ground, Netanyahu's rhetoric intersects with the practical policies led by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a prominent figure in the Israeli far right. Smotrich seeks to intensify settlement construction in the occupied West Bank, attempting to geographically fragment it and transform it into isolated, unviable cantons.
This policy aims to eliminate any possibility of establishing an independent Palestinian state, thereby negating the two-state solution, which most countries of the world agree upon as the most appropriate framework for resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Settlements not only constitute a violation of the rights of Palestinians to their land, but also constitute a flagrant violation of Security Council resolutions, particularly Resolution 2334 of 2016, which condemned settlement activity and deemed it illegal under international law.
For decades, the two-state solution has constituted the core of the international consensus on the future of the Palestinian issue. The 2002 Arab Peace Initiative affirmed this principle, opening the door to full recognition and normalization with Israel in exchange for withdrawal from the occupied territories. However, Netanyahu's statements and the practices of his right-wing government, particularly Smotrich's policies, represent a practical rejection of these initiatives and seek to impose a new reality that negates the Palestinians' right to self-determination.
This approach not only threatens the Palestinian people but also places the entire region in a state of permanent instability and undermines any chance of reviving the peace process. Jordan, which has long been a key player in supporting Palestinian rights and safeguarding holy sites in Jerusalem, views these policies as a direct infringement on its national interests and security.
In addition to the peace treaty with Jordan and the Arab states, Israel is also bound by agreements signed with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), such as the Oslo Accords and subsequent economic and security protocols. These agreements, although limited in their implementation, stipulate that negotiations are the only way to determine the final status of the Palestinian territories, not through the imposition of settlement and expansionist policies.
Netanyahu and Smotrich's plans go beyond these commitments and seek to nullify any political substance of the Oslo Accords, reflecting a complete lack of genuine intentions toward peace.
The international community, including the United Nations, the European Union, and Arab states, has repeatedly expressed its rejection of Israeli settlement projects and rhetoric of expansionism. The Arab League has considered any infringement on the legal status of Jerusalem or the occupied Palestinian territories a violation of international resolutions, while major powers such as China, Russia, and the European Union emphasize the need to adhere to the two-state solution.
The United States, despite its traditionally pro-Israel stance, remains—at least in theory—committed to the two-state solution, even though the statements of Netanyahu and his allies place Washington in an embarrassing position before its Arab allies.
Netanyahu's statements regarding 'Greater Israel' are merely a reflection of an expansionist mentality that contravenes international law, peace treaties, and international conventions. These dangerous statements are translated into practical action through the settlement policies led by Smotrich in the West Bank, which undermine the two-state solution and threaten regional stability. What is required today is a more resolute international and Arab stance to confront these violations and ensure Israel's commitment to the treaties it has signed, especially the peace treaty with Jordan and the agreements concluded with the Palestinian National Authority. Israel cannot demand peace and security while simultaneously brandishing rhetoric of expansion and denying the rights of others.
True peace is not built on the illusion of 'Greater Israel,' but rather on recognition of the other, respect for the sovereignty of states, and the rights of peoples to freedom and independence.
Hasan Dajah is professor of Strategic Studies at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly made statements regarding the so-called 'Greater Israel' project. This rhetoric is part of a political discourse based on expanding Israeli influence at the expense of neighboring countries, including Jordan and Egypt, while consolidating full control over the occupied Palestinian territories. These statements do not merely represent a passing political position; they constitute a clear violation of international conventions and a serious threat to the fragile peace process in the region.
Since the signing of the Wadi Araba Treaty in 1994 between Jordan and Israel, clear foundations have been established governing the relationship between the two parties, based on respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, and a commitment by both parties not to engage in any hostile acts or threat of the use of force. Article 3 of the treaty clearly stipulates mutual recognition of sovereignty and internationally recognized borders, while Article 5 prohibits any derogation of the rights of or direct threat to the two states. Netanyahu's statements about 'Greater Israel' constitute a direct violation of these provisions, as they imply the possibility of territorial expansion at the expense of Jordan and Egypt, which contradicts the spirit and text of the treaty. Jordan, which has for decades committed to peace and respect for understandings, finds itself today confronted with Israeli rhetoric that undermines the fundamentals of that treaty and opens the door to regional crises that could threaten stability and collective security.
Public international law sets red lines for any state's attempts to expand at the expense of its neighbors. Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter explicitly prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. This means that any attempt by Israel to promote the idea of 'Greater Israel' or link it to policies on the ground is considered a flagrant violation of international law.
The Geneva Conventions and human rights covenants also provide protection for peoples under occupation and criminalize settlements and the confiscation of land by force. Accordingly, Israel's policies, based on imposing a fait accompli in the Palestinian territories, contradict the peremptory norms of international law, which no state may violate or invoke local agreements to circumvent.
On the ground, Netanyahu's rhetoric intersects with the practical policies led by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a prominent figure in the Israeli far right. Smotrich seeks to intensify settlement construction in the occupied West Bank, attempting to geographically fragment it and transform it into isolated, unviable cantons.
This policy aims to eliminate any possibility of establishing an independent Palestinian state, thereby negating the two-state solution, which most countries of the world agree upon as the most appropriate framework for resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Settlements not only constitute a violation of the rights of Palestinians to their land, but also constitute a flagrant violation of Security Council resolutions, particularly Resolution 2334 of 2016, which condemned settlement activity and deemed it illegal under international law.
For decades, the two-state solution has constituted the core of the international consensus on the future of the Palestinian issue. The 2002 Arab Peace Initiative affirmed this principle, opening the door to full recognition and normalization with Israel in exchange for withdrawal from the occupied territories. However, Netanyahu's statements and the practices of his right-wing government, particularly Smotrich's policies, represent a practical rejection of these initiatives and seek to impose a new reality that negates the Palestinians' right to self-determination.
This approach not only threatens the Palestinian people but also places the entire region in a state of permanent instability and undermines any chance of reviving the peace process. Jordan, which has long been a key player in supporting Palestinian rights and safeguarding holy sites in Jerusalem, views these policies as a direct infringement on its national interests and security.
In addition to the peace treaty with Jordan and the Arab states, Israel is also bound by agreements signed with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), such as the Oslo Accords and subsequent economic and security protocols. These agreements, although limited in their implementation, stipulate that negotiations are the only way to determine the final status of the Palestinian territories, not through the imposition of settlement and expansionist policies.
Netanyahu and Smotrich's plans go beyond these commitments and seek to nullify any political substance of the Oslo Accords, reflecting a complete lack of genuine intentions toward peace.
The international community, including the United Nations, the European Union, and Arab states, has repeatedly expressed its rejection of Israeli settlement projects and rhetoric of expansionism. The Arab League has considered any infringement on the legal status of Jerusalem or the occupied Palestinian territories a violation of international resolutions, while major powers such as China, Russia, and the European Union emphasize the need to adhere to the two-state solution.
The United States, despite its traditionally pro-Israel stance, remains—at least in theory—committed to the two-state solution, even though the statements of Netanyahu and his allies place Washington in an embarrassing position before its Arab allies.
Netanyahu's statements regarding 'Greater Israel' are merely a reflection of an expansionist mentality that contravenes international law, peace treaties, and international conventions. These dangerous statements are translated into practical action through the settlement policies led by Smotrich in the West Bank, which undermine the two-state solution and threaten regional stability. What is required today is a more resolute international and Arab stance to confront these violations and ensure Israel's commitment to the treaties it has signed, especially the peace treaty with Jordan and the agreements concluded with the Palestinian National Authority. Israel cannot demand peace and security while simultaneously brandishing rhetoric of expansion and denying the rights of others.
True peace is not built on the illusion of 'Greater Israel,' but rather on recognition of the other, respect for the sovereignty of states, and the rights of peoples to freedom and independence.
Hasan Dajah is professor of Strategic Studies at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly made statements regarding the so-called 'Greater Israel' project. This rhetoric is part of a political discourse based on expanding Israeli influence at the expense of neighboring countries, including Jordan and Egypt, while consolidating full control over the occupied Palestinian territories. These statements do not merely represent a passing political position; they constitute a clear violation of international conventions and a serious threat to the fragile peace process in the region.
Since the signing of the Wadi Araba Treaty in 1994 between Jordan and Israel, clear foundations have been established governing the relationship between the two parties, based on respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, and a commitment by both parties not to engage in any hostile acts or threat of the use of force. Article 3 of the treaty clearly stipulates mutual recognition of sovereignty and internationally recognized borders, while Article 5 prohibits any derogation of the rights of or direct threat to the two states. Netanyahu's statements about 'Greater Israel' constitute a direct violation of these provisions, as they imply the possibility of territorial expansion at the expense of Jordan and Egypt, which contradicts the spirit and text of the treaty. Jordan, which has for decades committed to peace and respect for understandings, finds itself today confronted with Israeli rhetoric that undermines the fundamentals of that treaty and opens the door to regional crises that could threaten stability and collective security.
Public international law sets red lines for any state's attempts to expand at the expense of its neighbors. Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter explicitly prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. This means that any attempt by Israel to promote the idea of 'Greater Israel' or link it to policies on the ground is considered a flagrant violation of international law.
The Geneva Conventions and human rights covenants also provide protection for peoples under occupation and criminalize settlements and the confiscation of land by force. Accordingly, Israel's policies, based on imposing a fait accompli in the Palestinian territories, contradict the peremptory norms of international law, which no state may violate or invoke local agreements to circumvent.
On the ground, Netanyahu's rhetoric intersects with the practical policies led by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a prominent figure in the Israeli far right. Smotrich seeks to intensify settlement construction in the occupied West Bank, attempting to geographically fragment it and transform it into isolated, unviable cantons.
This policy aims to eliminate any possibility of establishing an independent Palestinian state, thereby negating the two-state solution, which most countries of the world agree upon as the most appropriate framework for resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Settlements not only constitute a violation of the rights of Palestinians to their land, but also constitute a flagrant violation of Security Council resolutions, particularly Resolution 2334 of 2016, which condemned settlement activity and deemed it illegal under international law.
For decades, the two-state solution has constituted the core of the international consensus on the future of the Palestinian issue. The 2002 Arab Peace Initiative affirmed this principle, opening the door to full recognition and normalization with Israel in exchange for withdrawal from the occupied territories. However, Netanyahu's statements and the practices of his right-wing government, particularly Smotrich's policies, represent a practical rejection of these initiatives and seek to impose a new reality that negates the Palestinians' right to self-determination.
This approach not only threatens the Palestinian people but also places the entire region in a state of permanent instability and undermines any chance of reviving the peace process. Jordan, which has long been a key player in supporting Palestinian rights and safeguarding holy sites in Jerusalem, views these policies as a direct infringement on its national interests and security.
In addition to the peace treaty with Jordan and the Arab states, Israel is also bound by agreements signed with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), such as the Oslo Accords and subsequent economic and security protocols. These agreements, although limited in their implementation, stipulate that negotiations are the only way to determine the final status of the Palestinian territories, not through the imposition of settlement and expansionist policies.
Netanyahu and Smotrich's plans go beyond these commitments and seek to nullify any political substance of the Oslo Accords, reflecting a complete lack of genuine intentions toward peace.
The international community, including the United Nations, the European Union, and Arab states, has repeatedly expressed its rejection of Israeli settlement projects and rhetoric of expansionism. The Arab League has considered any infringement on the legal status of Jerusalem or the occupied Palestinian territories a violation of international resolutions, while major powers such as China, Russia, and the European Union emphasize the need to adhere to the two-state solution.
The United States, despite its traditionally pro-Israel stance, remains—at least in theory—committed to the two-state solution, even though the statements of Netanyahu and his allies place Washington in an embarrassing position before its Arab allies.
Netanyahu's statements regarding 'Greater Israel' are merely a reflection of an expansionist mentality that contravenes international law, peace treaties, and international conventions. These dangerous statements are translated into practical action through the settlement policies led by Smotrich in the West Bank, which undermine the two-state solution and threaten regional stability. What is required today is a more resolute international and Arab stance to confront these violations and ensure Israel's commitment to the treaties it has signed, especially the peace treaty with Jordan and the agreements concluded with the Palestinian National Authority. Israel cannot demand peace and security while simultaneously brandishing rhetoric of expansion and denying the rights of others.
True peace is not built on the illusion of 'Greater Israel,' but rather on recognition of the other, respect for the sovereignty of states, and the rights of peoples to freedom and independence.
Hasan Dajah is professor of Strategic Studies at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University
comments
Netanyahu and "greater Israel": Illusion vs. international law
comments