DIVINE DOMINION: Israel’s expansive vision of land and power

Divine dominion exerts a formidable influence in the Middle East, with Israel positioned at its centre. The nation’s persistent military actions in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and the West Bank suggest motives that may extend beyond simple border defence and when geopolitics and the quest for power interweave with religious fervour, the promise of true peace has always remained elusive.

From the misty heights of Sinai to the embattled borders of the modern Middle East, two intertwined visions—GREATER ISRAEL and DAVID’S CORRIDOR—offer a striking lens on how ancient promises collide with contemporary power politics. Rooted in the landmark covenant of Genesis 15:18–21, the “Greater Israel” ideal imagines a territorial inheritance “from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates,” a landscape that transcends merely historical geography to embody a sacred destiny. Today, this vision lives on not only in theological memory but also in the strategic ambitions of state and non-state actors.

Enter “David’s Corridor,” a 21st-century blueprint for forging a continuous land bridge through the Golan Heights, across southern Syria, and into Kurdish-held regions—effectively stitching together zones once thought to belong to different sovereignties. Far from a purely military plan, the Corridor taps the same symbolic energy that fuels Greater Israel: it stakes claims on ancient covenants while projecting them onto modern maps.

THE “GREATER ISRAEL VISION”

The “Greater Israel vision” is a multifaceted geopolitical and ideological concept that calls for an expanded Israeli state beyond its current internationally recognized borders. Rooted in ancient biblical narratives and early Zionist thought, it often envisions a territory that extends from traditionally defined boundaries—sometimes even described evocatively as stretching “from the Nile to the Euphrates.” This expansive idea can include the following:

• Modern State of Israel
• West Bank (Judea & Samaria)
• Gaza Strip
• Golan Heights
• the Nile River in Egypt
• the Euphrates River in Iraq
• southern Turkey
• northern Saudi Arabia

In practical political discourse, proponents of the vision argue that expanding Israel’s borders or establishing contiguous Jewish settlements can create strategic buffer zones that bolster national security. They contend that holding these territories is not only a fulfilment of a historical destiny but also a necessary measure to defend against regional threats. On the other hand, critics—including much of the international community and Palestinian observers—see these ambitions as destabilizing, asserting that they undermine both prospects for peace and the rights of other peoples in the region. Over time, the interpretation of Greater Israel has evolved: for some, it remains primarily a symbolic expression of a historic right, while for others it has practical implications in contemporary policies related to settlements and territorial negotiations .

The scriptural foundation for the concept of a “Greater Israel” is primarily found in the covenant promises recorded in the Hebrew Bible—especially those given to the patriarchs. Key passages include:

1. Genesis 12:1-3 and Genesis 12:7:  In these passages, God calls Abraham to leave his homeland and promises to give his descendants a new land. This promise lays the groundwork for the later territorial expectations of the Jewish people.
2. Genesis 15:18-21:  Perhaps the most cited passage in discussions of Greater Israel, here God makes a covenant with Abram, declaring,“To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates.”
   Although this description is subject to various interpretations, many take it as an indication of a vast territory reserved for Abraham’s descendants.
3. Genesis 17:8: God further reinforces the promise by saying,“And I will give to you, and to your offspring after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.”

This verse underscores the idea of an enduring, divinely sanctioned claim to the land.

Interpreting these texts has always involved a combination of legal, historical, and theological readings. While traditional Jewish thought emphasizes the covenantal relationship and the ongoing spiritual significance of these promises, modern political and ideological interpretations of “Greater Israel” build on these scriptural foundations in ways that are subject to considerable debate.

DAVID’S CORRIDOR

David’s Corridor, however, is less theological and more political.  It is the name given by analysts—primarily Turkish and regional observers—to an alleged, covert Israeli plan to carve out a continuous overland route from the occupied Golan Heights across southern and eastern Syria into northern Syria’s Kurdish-held areas, ultimately linking to Iraqi Kurdistan. Though never officially acknowledged by Jerusalem, it’s seen as a strategic bid to partition Syria and secure Israel’s eastern flank.

The term first surfaced in Turkish political discourse, where commentators warned that Israel might be colluding with Syrian Kurdish separatists to cement control over a swath of territory stretching from Quneitra/Daraa on the Golan border to the Euphrates River. By embedding itself alongside—or behind—local proxy forces, Israel would block both Iran and Turkey from projecting power in these borderlands.

Analysts map the corridor through these key governorates:

1. Mount Hermon & Occupied Golan Heights
   Significance: Highest vantage point in southern Syria, anchoring Israeli observation posts and air defence arrays.
2. Quneitra–Daraa Security Belt
   Significance: Israel enforces a de facto “no-go” buffer, interdicting Syrian reinforcements north–south.
3. al-Tanf Border Hub
   Significance: Joint U.S.–Israeli–Kurdish logistics node linking Jordanian and Iraqi border crossings.
4. Deir ez-Zor Frontline
   Significance: Ensures Kurdish-Israeli access to eastern Syria’s energy infrastructure and Euphrates crossings.
5. Raqqa Strongpoint
   Significance: Consolidates control over the heartland of Syria’s formerly insurgent capital.
6. Manbij Junction
   Significance: Final link in the land-bridge, bridging Kurdish-controlled northern Syria with Israeli-held Golan.

This alignment would give Israel a roughly 800-km stretch of influence from the Golan plateau to the Iraqi frontier.

Strategically, the corridor leverages decades-old “peripheral alliance” tactics: forging ties with non-Arab minorities (Kurds, Druze, etc.) to counterbalance hostile Arab majorities and regional rivals. In practice, it’s meant to:

1. Secure Israel’s northeastern borders against Iranian proxies.
2. Guarantee access to critical oil and gas fields in eastern Syria.
3. Establish a land bridge for rapid military and logistical movements into the Levant.
4. Undermine Damascus’s sovereignty, making any counter-offensive costly and diplomatically fraught.

Obstacles are formidable: active militias like Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces, the Syrian government’s residual army, Iranian Revolutionary Guard operations, and Turkey’s willingness to crack down on Kurdish expansion all threaten to derail such a grand design.

Even though David’s Corridor remains an unacknowledged yet tangible overlay on Syria’s fractured map, there are a number of patterns indicating that military, political and proxy-based moves across southern and eastern Syria point toward exactly such a plan. Here’s how it’s taking shape:

1. Expanding de facto control in southern Syria
   Since early 2025, Israeli warplanes have struck hundreds of targets across southern Syria, and ground forces have pushed beyond the Golan Heights into Quneitra and parts of Daraa provinces. Today Israel occupies the UN buffer zone, key highlands like Mount Hermon (overlooking Damascus), and has built several fortified bases. By declaring much of the area a no-go zone for Syrian government forces, Israel effectively polices its own “security strip” up to the Euphrates’ western bank.
2. Backing and arming local proxies—above all Kurdish forces
   Alongside its direct operations, Israel quietly cultivates alliances with minority groups—most notably Syrian Kurdish militias affiliated with the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces. These partnerships serve two purposes: they deny Syria (and by extension Iran and Turkey) unfettered access to borderlands, and they lay the groundwork for a contiguous Israel-to-Kurdistan land bridge. This mirrors Israel’s longstanding “peripheral alliance” doctrine of forging ties with non-Arab minorities in the Levant.
3. Covert logistics and infrastructure
   Though few details are public, satellite imagery and on-the-ground reports document new forward operating bases near al-Tanf (on the Iraqi border) and road upgrades threading through Daraa, Suwayda and Deir ez-Zor governorates. These installations aren’t just airfields or artillery posts—they’re logistics hubs, complete with fuel depots, field hospitals and radar arrays, sized and sited to support sustained patrols and rapid-response raids along a corridor spanning 800+ kilometres.
4. Ideological framing and regional diplomacy
   At home, Israeli political circles sometimes invoke a version of Herzl’s “Greater Israel” borders (Nile to Euphrates) to justify deep engagement in Syria. Externally, Jerusalem courts Kurdish, Druze and other minority leaders to bolster legitimacy—while reminding Turkey and Iran that any push against those minorities risks a direct Israeli response. That diplomatic balancing act both narrows Syria’s sovereign options and cements Israel’s shadow-governance over strategic swaths of land.

Where this goes next hinges on two wild cards: how strongly Tehran and Ankara counter-mobilize their proxy networks (especially Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces), and whether Damascus can rally its fractured army to contest Israel’s advances. For now, though, every new airstrike, base-construction project and Kurdish weapons shipment tightens the grip on what analysts already call “David’s Corridor.”

THE IMPLICATIONS

The geopolitical implications of linking the Greater Israel vision with David’s Corridor are multifaceted and profound:

1. Regional Tensions and Instability:
   The aspiration to create a contiguous land link—from the occupied Golan Heights through parts of Syria into Kurdish-held territories—echoes the broader, historical ambition of a “Greater Israel.” This vision naturally raises alarms among neighbouring states (like Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan) and regional powers (such as Iran and Turkey). Pursuing such expansionist objectives could provoke heightened tensions, destabilize the balance of power in the Levant, and lead to confrontations over sovereignty and territorial integrity.
2. Alliance Dynamics and Proxy Engagement:
   A strategy centred on establishing a corridor would likely require forging or strengthening alliances with local non-state actors or minority groups—especially within Kurdish regions. While such partnerships may offer immediate strategic benefits, they also risk deepening sectarian and ethnic divisions, drawing Israel further into the regional web of proxy conflicts. These alignments could complicate relations with major global powers who are invested in maintaining a stable Middle Eastern order and in resolving long-standing conflicts (notably between Israelis and Palestinians).
3. Internal and International Diplomacy:
   Pursuing a geopolitical strategy rooted in ancient, biblically inspired territorial claims could bolster nationalist sentiments within Israel. However, it may also complicate domestic politics, as differing views on expansionism can lead to internal debate over the nation’s future. Internationally, such moves would likely be met with criticism and resistance from the broader community, particularly within forums like the United Nations, where unilateral changes to borders are viewed as undermining international law and peace processes.
4. Impact on Peace Prospects:
   Ultimately, linking these visions raises serious questions about the viability of sustained diplomatic progress in the region. Expanding territorial claims and establishing strategic corridors may not only deepen existing conflicts but also hinder efforts toward achieving a negotiated, two-state solution.

Finally, the long-term pursuit of these visions, regardless the speed and intensity, risks entrenching divisions and perpetuating cycles of conflict, thereby making meaningful reconciliation and peace even more elusive.

As David Aikman famously titled his study of the region The Mirage of Peace, arguing that “peace in the Middle East is often a mirage—persistently promised yet perpetually elusive,” because every cease-fire merely paper-over ancient hatreds, future feuds, power struggles, and unaddressed spiritual fault lines