Insatiable hunger: Israel's never-ending quest for expansion

Israel's renewed attacks on Lebanon have once again raised the question of the extent of Tel Aviv's security agenda. The war that began in Gaza on Oct. 7, 2023, has already spread beyond Gaza's borders. Today, Israel continues its attacks on countries stretching from Palestine to Lebanon, Syria and Iran, arguing that it acts on the grounds of "national security" in almost every part of this expanding geography.

Understanding the Power-Hungry State Approach

The most fitting concept to explain Israel's security policy since its founding is the "power-hungry state" approach. Power-hungry states are not content with the power they possess. They constantly seek more influence and control. Security is not an ultimate goal for them, but rather a function that legitimizes new interventions and expansionist moves.

This framework helps explain why declared objectives rarely remain fixed. Instead, they evolve to justify broader operations across multiple fronts. The approach treats security as a dynamic tool rather than a static achievement, allowing policymakers to frame each new action as essential to previous goals.

The Spread of Operations Beyond Initial Targets

The declared aim after Oct. 7 was to neutralize Hamas. However, as the process progressed, the targets expanded. While genocide was being committed in Gaza, repression increased in the West Bank, and Lebanon, Syria and Iran were attacked. This pattern shows how initial military campaigns can quickly encompass neighboring states when security is defined in expansive terms.

Regional actors have observed these shifts closely. Neighboring countries must now factor in the possibility that operations justified by one set of threats could extend into their own territories under similar rationales.

Specific Territorial Ambitions in Southern Lebanon

In March, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich called for the annexation of southern Lebanon. Defense Minister Israel Katz stated Israel should establish a permanent security zone in the region extending to the Litani River. These statements illustrate how security arguments translate into concrete territorial proposals.

Such proposals directly affect Lebanon's sovereignty and stability. They also influence calculations in Damascus and Tehran, where officials monitor whether similar logic might apply to their borders in the future.

How Expansive Security Definitions Reproduce Threats

The real issue is how security is defined. When security becomes intertwined with establishing an ever-expanding sphere of influence, threats do not disappear - they are constantly reproduced. The pursuit of security becomes a self-reinforcing vortex that draws in additional actors and resources.

States operating under this model often find that each new intervention generates fresh opposition. Alliances form among previously unaligned parties, and local populations become more resistant to external involvement, thereby validating the original premise of perpetual vigilance.

Strategic Calculus and Paradoxes of Strength

Tel Aviv's understanding of security has been shaped by expansionist policies under the guise of self-preservation. Extreme interpretations of Zionism view security not as a fixed condition, but as justification for continual expansion. The area Israel effectively controls today has expanded to approximately three times its original size.

States can become paradoxically more insecure as they become stronger. Excessive use of force creates new threats, leads to new alliances, and erodes international legitimacy. The international pressure, diplomatic isolation, and growing anti-Israel wave after the Gaza War demonstrate this dynamic in practice.

Regional Dynamics and Long-Term Consequences

Israel's situation can be likened to Erysichthon in Greek mythology - cursed with an insatiable hunger that eventually consumed his own body. This analogy captures how the drive for greater control can undermine the very foundations of stability that security policies claim to protect.

Across the Middle East, governments and non-state actors are recalibrating their strategies in response. The pattern of expanding operations suggests that future conflicts may involve wider geographic scopes unless the underlying definition of security undergoes fundamental revision.