Stop ‘Greater Israel’ to make peace
Professor and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University. Advisor on the Middle East and Africa for UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. On June 14, the United
Professor and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University. Advisor on the Middle East and Africa for UN Sustainable Deve
Read Full Story at Al Jazeera →Why This Matters
The push to halt the expansion of Israel's settlement policies is not just a territorial dispute—it represents a fundamental test of whether the international community can enforce its own principles of self-determination and territorial integrity. The call to "stop 'Greater Israel'" challenges the long-standing assumption that unilateral annexation is an irreversible fait accompli, forcing a reckoning with the legal and moral contradictions of occupation under prolonged conflict.
Background Context
Israel's settlement enterprise in the West Bank, though widely condemned by the UN and international law, has systematically expanded since 1967 under a policy often framed as a security necessity. Successive U.S. administrations have either enabled this expansion or failed to meaningfully curb it, while the Palestinian Authority's legitimacy has eroded amid fragmentation and international fatigue. The international legal consensus—rooted in UN Security Council Resolution 2334—has been repeatedly undermined by de facto acceptance of Israel's fait accompli strategy.
What Happens Next
If the momentum to block further land appropriation gains traction, it could reignite stalled diplomatic efforts, particularly within the EU and among Arab states wary of normalization without tangible concessions. However, with Israel's far-right coalition emboldened by Washington's shifting priorities, the window for a two-state framework may close without an immediate crisis forcing a rethink of the status quo. The question now is whether global powers will prioritize symbolic resolutions over enforceable measures—or whether the next escalation in violence will force a choice between inaction and intervention.
Bigger Picture
This moment reflects a broader erosion of the post-WWII international order's ability to constrain unilateral territorial grabs, from Russia’s annexation of Crimea to China’s South China Sea claims. The Middle East’s unresolved conflict increasingly serves as a litmus test for collective security mechanisms, where the gap between legal condemnation and material action continues to widen. Absent a credible deterrent, the precedent of "facts on the ground" will keep undermining the very institutions meant to prevent them.
