Israel’s Promised Land

What is happening in Syria right now shows that the Druze community wants to join Israel. Leaders from Druze villages in the Golan Heights are pushing for their areas to be placed under Israeli administration, pointing out that they play a stabilizing role in the region. We learn that Druze residents in southern Syria are handing over their weapons to the Israeli army (which until now the Western media has told us is not in Syria).

Analysts say that as the Assad regime has collapsed, the Druze are seeking greater autonomy or even independence, with the support of Israel and the United Arab Emirates. Muafak Tarif, the Druze leader in Israel, has already spoken with the President of the United Arab Emirates, Mohammad bin Zayed, and has already met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu has said that the Druze are important for maintaining Syria’s stability. Moreover, local Druze leaders have expressed support for annexation by Israel, despite ongoing tensions with groups such as Hezbollah.

  • The collapse of the Assad regime has prompted the Druze to seek autonomy and independence.
  • Recent reports indicate a shift in allegiance, with some Druze residents reportedly joining Hezbollah.
  • Meetings among Druze leaders reflect a growing consensus for their villages to be placed under Israeli administration.

1. Is it possible to ask for “independence and autonomy” but hand over one’s weapons to an occupying army?

No. This move by Druze leaders reveals under-the-table agreements (or threats) between Druze and Israelis.

2. What are the main reasons why the Druze seek annexation to Israel?

The Druze seek annexation to Israel mainly for reasons of security and stability in the region, especially in light of the changing political landscape following the decline of the Assad regime.

3. How has the Israeli government responded to the Druze’s demands?

The Israeli government, particularly through Prime Minister Netanyahu, has expressed support for the Druze role in stability and is open to discussions about their demands for administration and autonomy.

4. What are the implications of the Druze push for annexation for regional stability?

The Druze push for annexation could lead to changes in regional alliances and power dynamics, potentially increasing tensions with groups like Hezbollah and affecting the broader geopolitical situation in Syria.

5. Are there external factors influencing the Druze demand for support?

Yes, the Druze demand for support is influenced by external factors, including the involvement of the United Arab Emirates and the changing power dynamics in Syria following the weakening of the Assad regime.

Israel’s foreign policy, it turns out, has one central goal, its expansion into neighboring states. And we have also repeatedly demonstrated the underground ties with the Western political scene that help these Israeli plans. This recent move, to expand Israeli territory into Syria, is certainly the second step towards Israel’s ultimate goal, which is the creation of a state of Greater Israel. The first step was the annexation of Gaza.

“Greater Israel” or the “Kingdom of Israel”, which actually means “the promised land of Israel”, is a term used to describe a region that includes areas from the Palestinian Territories to the Nile to the Euphrates, from Medina to Lebanon, and territories from Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan.

This they have pursued over time and with remarkable diligence. They have gone through various stages to achieve it, but it has always been their ultimate goal. They base their claim on the “book of Genesis” (!!!) which says that God promised the land to the descendants of Abram. It is a “covenant between God and Abram for his descendants.” Abram’s name was later changed to Abraham and the promise passed through his son Isaac and to the Israelites, descendants of Jacob, Abraham’s grandson.

Joel Greenberg recalled this in an article in the New York Times, noting: “At the founding of Israel in 1948, the Labor Zionist leadership, which continued to govern Israel for the first three decades of its independence, accepted a pragmatic partition of former British Palestine into independent Jewish and Arab states. The opposition Revisionist Zionists, who evolved into today’s Likud party, sought Eretz Yisrael Ha-Shlema—Greater Israel, or literally, the entire Land of Israel (shalem, meaning complete).”

The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip by Jordan and Egypt during the Six-Day War (1967) led to the development of the extra-parliamentary Greater Israel Movement and the construction of Israeli settlements.

The Greater Israel Movement, also known as the Land of Israel Movement, was a political organization in Israel during the 1970s that believed in the idea of ​​a greater Israel. The organization was founded in July 1967, a month after Israel occupied the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights in the Six-Day War. At the time, it called on the Israeli government to retain the occupied territories and settle them with Jewish populations.

It seems that the recent shift from a dominant geopolitical pole of power to a multipolar landscape has triggered the final stages of this plan.

In March 2023, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, leader of the far-right National Religious Party-Religious Zionism, spoke in Paris from behind a podium with a map of “Greater Israel” that included Transjordan.

We are waiting to see how the 3rd step of the plan will unfold.

Those who have been warning for decades about Israel’s imperialist plans and were demonized as “anti-Semitic criminals” must now feel vindicated.

About the author

The Liberal Globe is an independent online magazine that provides carefully selected varieties of stories. Our authoritative insight opinions, analyses, researches are reflected in the sections which are both thematic and geographical. We do not attach ourselves to any political party. Our political agenda is liberal in the classical sense. We continue to advocate bold policies in favour of individual freedoms, even if that means we must oppose the will and the majority view, even if these positions that we express may be unpleasant and unbearable for the majority.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *