This post is also available in:
English
Short answer
Anti-Israel voices often accuse the country of pursuing a so-called “Greater Israel” agenda—claiming it is driven by a religiously motivated, systematic policy of territorial expansion and the displacement of Muslim, Arab, or Palestinian populations for the benefit of such a vision. These accusations tend to intensify dramatically following Israeli military victories or land acquisitions…..
HOWEVER, a closer examination of Israel’s history reveals these claims to be entirely false:
While border changes resulting from wars are a common pattern throughout human history, Israel has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to relinquish territory in pursuit of peace with its neighbors. Notable examples include the return of the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in 1979, the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, and the withdrawal from Southern Lebanon in 2000.
The reality is that most of Israel’s territorial decisions are driven by security concerns, not expansionist ideology. Strategic buffer zones are intended to defend against ground invasions, short-range rocket attacks, and underground tunnel threats—not to pursue conquest or demographic manipulation.
To accuse Israel of pursuing a “Greater Israel” policy is to ignore well-documented historical facts and reduce a complex geopolitical and security-driven situation to a simplistic and misleading anti-Israel narrative.
Long answer
Accusations against Israel regarding its alleged pursuit of a “Greater Israel” often focus on claims of territorial expansion and supposed policies aimed at annexing land and displacing Palestinian, Arab, or Muslim populations. Anti-Israelis argue that this is part of a broader strategy to absorb large portions of the Middle East under the guise of fulfilling a biblical vision—a notion frequently invoked to delegitimize Israel’s very existence. These claims are often weaponized to inflame the international liberal community and the Muslim world.
However, this is a modern blood libel—and it is entirely false.
In direct contradiction to the myth of an ever-expanding “Greater Israel” agenda, Israel has repeatedly relinquished significant territories in pursuit of peace and stability. For example:
In 1979, Israel returned the entire Sinai Peninsula to Egypt as part of the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty. This land had been captured during the 1967 Six-Day War, and its return was a central pillar of the Camp David Accords signed in 1978.
In 2005, Israel unilaterally disengaged from the Gaza Strip, dismantling all 21 Jewish settlements, evacuating over 8,000 Israeli civilians, and withdrawing all military personnel and infrastructure. Despite this major concession, the result for Israel was the October 7th massacre—an outcome that starkly illustrates the high risk involved in such acts of goodwill.
Bethlehem, once under Israeli control, was transferred to Palestinian Authority governance under the Oslo Accords, serving as another example of Israel’s willingness to share land in the name of peace.
These decisions make it abundantly clear: Israel does not seek territorial expansion for its own sake. Rather, it acts from a position of self-defense and strategic caution, especially after past concessions have led to further aggression.
And in reality it is a recurring pattern that is evident—accusations of a “Greater Israel” scheme surge every time Israel wins a war or reasserts its right to defend itself. These narratives are designed to distort a complex and deeply rooted conflict into a one-dimensional, vilifying storyline that fuels hatred and incitement.
