“Greater Israel”: A huge challenge to Arab national security
Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister recently declared unwavering commitment to the vision of a “Greater Israel”. He explicitly links Israel’s future to a project that extends beyond its current borders into neighbouring Arab lands. As the Israeli street has decisively turned towards to the right, the remarks of Netanyahu, Israel’s longest serving leader, carried unusual weight. The significance of these remarks was underscored by the US President Donald Trump’s earlier comment that Israel is “too small”; a suggestion that its borders must expand. This is a view that is often reflected in the thinking within decision making circles in Washington.
Regional responses to Netanyahu’s remarks have been swift. Governments condemned his framing of the “Greater Israel” project as both a historic and spiritual mission, calling it a direct assault on their sovereignty and international law. Statements issued whether individually or collectively urged a firm Arab and international response. The most recent Arab League summit, meanwhile, approved the creation of a “Joint Arab Security Coordination Room,” led by Baghdad, to counter terrorism and organised crime. While modest in scope, this move hinted at a growing recognition of the need for collective Arab security mechanisms.
Netanyahu’s declaration underscored a threat that Arab states have long tried to downplay. It is one of three realities. In particular, it highlights the need for a thorough reassessment of the current framework of Arab national security, amid a series of recent developments and shifting regional dynamics.
The second reality is the Israeli strikes against Gaza and Iran, as well as its operations in Lebanon and Syria, which reflect a number of facts. Israel have laid bare the depth of its intelligence and cyber capabilities, which it has used perfectly to conduct espionage and infiltrate the countries of the region. Israel has clearly crossed a red line by killing a huge number of innocent people especially in Gaza, but also in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and Yemen. By so doing, it has stripped away any remaining illusions, about its intentions, exposing a policy making elite whose actions reflect a deeply rooted hostility toward Arabs, Muslims and Christians in the region. Israel has also concentrated efforts to weaken these countries, not only by destroying their offensive and defensive militarily capabilities, but also by stoking domestic divisions inside these countries. In Lebanon, the US urged the Lebanese leadership to withdraw Hezbollah’s weapons, potentially igniting a major conflict in the country. Also in Syria, Israel backed the Druze in Suwaida in south Syria, putting them under its protection, and targeting the Syrian military around Suwaida. And in Iran, Israel could not hide its support of any efforts to change the Iranian system. All these facts support the first reality of Netanyahu’s declaration about a “Greater Israel”.
The American and Western commitments to guaranteeing Israel’s position and to supporting its interests in the region, which has been well documented after October seventh war in Gaza is the third reality. Although Western commitment to Israel’s supremacy and dominance in the region is not new, Arab countries such as Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf states, are facing escalating threats from Israel. Since their security and military systems remain tethered to the same Western frameworks that guarantee Israel’s dominance, a dangerous paradox has been created. These three dynamics together raise profound questions about the viability of Arab national security itself.
American and Western commitments to guaranteeing Israel’s military edge codified through legislation, strategic agreements, and vast financial assistance have effectively ensured Israeli supremacy. The historical record underscores this pattern. While no formal defence treaty exists between Washington and Tel Aviv, successive crises from the Iran conflict to earlier regional wars have proven that the US actually treats Israel’s security as its own. Agreements dating back to the Camp David Accords in 1979, followed by the 1981 strategic cooperation pact under Ronald Reagan, institutionalised regular military coordination. By 2016, Washington had pledged $38 billion in military aid to Israel over a decade, the largest commitment to any state in US history covering everything from the Iron Dome missile defence to advanced cyber and artificial intelligence systems. In addition, American military stockpiles are even positioned inside Israel for use in times of war.
The European Union, for its part, maintains a formal partnership with Israel. While Brussels occasionally voices criticism of Israeli settlement policies, the EU nevertheless treats Israel as a strategic partner in technology, research, and security. Cooperative projects under the Horizon research program, Galileo satellite systems, and Europol counterterrorism agreements illustrate this entrenched partnership. NATO, too, while Israel is not a member, has made it a central partner in its “Mediterranean Dialogue” since 1994. From naval operations in the Mediterranean to bilateral defence agreements with countries like the UK and Germany, Israel enjoys deep institutional ties that are exceedingly difficult to suspend, even amid humanitarian crises.
By contrast, Arab defence systems remain structurally constrained. From fighter jets to missile defence and cybersecurity, the overwhelming majority of Arab armies rely on American or European suppliers, contracts, and oversight. Agreements with the US often explicitly prohibit the use of weapons against Israel, while ensuring that Israeli forces retain technological superiority. Gulf states’ air defence networks are tied into Western early warning systems, and even Egypt, the second largest recipient of US military aid after Israel, cannot update or deploy certain strategic systems without Washington’s approval. This interdependence not only erodes Arab strategic autonomy but also grants Washington effective veto power over Arab military responses. In addition, Washington’s strategy of pushing Arab-Israeli normalisation, rooted in economic interdependence and security entanglement, has only deepened this dependency, tying both Arab military capacity and economic systems into frameworks that reinforce Israeli superiority.
The current dilemma is stark; Arab security frameworks remain subordinate to Western systems that are legally and strategically bound to protect Israel’s military edge. Netanyahu’s invocation of “Greater Israel” thus appears to be more than rhetoric, it is a direct challenge to Arab sovereignty. For years, Arab governments have sidestepped the Israeli threat in their national security doctrines, focusing instead on other internal or regional challenges. But recent developments from the war in Gaza to attacks on Iranian, Lebanon, and Syria’s sovereignty, and the explicit articulation of expansionist ambitions have pushed this challenge to the forefront. What is at stake now is not simply how Arab states define threats, but also how they can build independent security structures capable of responding to them. Without such a recalibration, Arab national security risks maintaining a framework designed not to defend against external threats, but to sustain a regional order where Israel’s supremacy is guaranteed. Yet the challenge remains daunting. The intersection of three realities, the unveiling of Israel’s expansionist agenda, the unqualified US Western backing for Israel, and the structural dependence of Arab security systems on Western powers creates a near impossible environment for an independent Arab response.
August 29, 2025 -
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | European Union, Israel, Middle East, NATO, Zionism
No comments yet.
Aletho News
Aletho News 
Leave a comment