The Torah verses convey profound messages that we can insightfully extract for our daily lives. Rabbi Shay Tahan, the Rosh Kollel of Shaarei Ezra in Brooklyn, NY, graciously opens the gates to understand them.
The recent conflict in Lebanon raises the age-old question regarding the northern borders of biblical Eretz Yisrael. Where exactly did Hashem define the boundaries, and are we obligated to conquer those areas? Do the mitzvot of terumah and ma’aser apply to those lands as part of Eretz Yisrael, or are they considered outside the borders?
The Torah provides clear guidelines regarding the areas we were commanded to conquer when taking possession of the land.
In the last generation, the term “Greater Israel” has come to the forefront. It is sometimes used in political or religious discussions about the ideal or future borders of Israel, often in the context of messianic or Zionist aspirations. Some interpret it as a call for the re-establishment of Israel’s biblical borders. However, the concept varies in meaning, ranging from symbolic or spiritual interpretations to literal geographical claims.
This term refers to the concept of the biblical boundaries of the Land of Israel as promised to the Jewish people in various parts of the Torah. It is often associated with the land described in the Covenant with Avraham (Brit Bein HaBetarim), which stretches from the “River of Egypt” (interpreted by some as the Nile or a smaller river in Sinai) to the Perat River. This expansive region includes parts of modern-day Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq.
When Hashem promised Avraham Avinu the Land of Israel at the Brit Bein HaBetarim, the pasuk says (בראשית טז): “On that day, Hashem made a covenant with Avram, saying: To your descendants, I have given this land—from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates.”
UPDATE: The JP took the article down since this morning but here it is saved on the WayBack Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20240925120359/https://www.jpost.com/judaism/article-821680
American Buddhist Net 
I think it’s obvious to many people now that whoever made that promise to Abraham is not God. Maybe a god of some kind, but more likely a demon or the devil himself. The God that is Love that is spoken of by Jesus and the Masters of India, Tibet, Nepal, and worldwide does not support or condone the violence and suffering that Israel has inflicted on the peoples of that region of the world, not just now, but over and over again throughout history.
Not a new idea, that the God of Abraham and Jesus’ Father were different Gods. It goes back to Marcion 140 AD. Just check the wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion_of_Sinope
He was declared a heretic and excommunicated.
‘led Marcion to conclude that many of the teachings of Jesus were incompatible with the actions of Yahweh, characterized as the belligerent god of the Hebrew Bible.’
‘Marcion declared that Christianity was in complete discontinuity with Judaism and entirely opposed to the scriptures of Judaism.’
Thanks for this information. Very interesting. Below are a couple of clips from the link you provided:
Study of the Hebrew Bible, along with received writings circulating in the nascent Church, led Marcion to conclude that many of the teachings of Jesus were incompatible with the actions of Yahweh, characterized as the belligerent god of the Hebrew Bible. Marcion responded by developing a ditheistic system of belief around the year 144.[note 2] This notion of two gods—a higher transcendent one and a lower world-creator and ruler—allowed Marcion to reconcile his perceived contradictions between Christian Covenant theology and the gospel proclaimed by the New Testament.
In contrast to other leaders of the nascent Christian Church, however, Marcion declared that Christianity was in complete discontinuity with Judaism and entirely opposed to the scriptures of Judaism. Marcion did not claim that these were false. Instead, he asserted that they were entirely true, but were to be read in an absolutely literalistic manner, one which led him to develop an understanding that Yahweh was not the same God spoken of by Jesus. For example, Marcion argued that the Genesis account of Yahweh walking through the Garden of Eden asking where Adam was, proved that Yahweh inhabited a physical body and was without universal knowledge, attributes wholly incompatible with the Heavenly Father professed by Jesus.
…Marcion is sometimes described as a Gnostic philosopher. In some essential respects, Marcion proposed ideas which aligned well with Gnostic thought. Like the Gnostics, he believed that Jesus was essentially a divine spirit who appeared to human beings in human form, but did not actually take on a fleshly human body.[6]
However, Marcionism conceptualizes God in a way which cannot be reconciled with broader Gnostic thought. For Gnostics, some human beings are born with a small piece of God’s soul lodged within their spirit (akin to the notion of a Divine Spark).[31] God is thus intimately connected to and part of his creation. Salvation lies in turning away from the physical world (which Gnostics regard as an illusion) and embracing the godlike qualities within oneself. Marcion, by contrast, held that the Heavenly Father (the father of Jesus Christ) was an utterly alien God; he had no part in making the world, nor any connection with it.[31] According to Bart Ehrman: “Marcion himself should not be thought of as a Gnostic; he held that there were only two gods, not many; he did not think of this world as a cosmic disaster, but as the creation of the Old Testament God; and he did not think divine sparks resided in human bodies that could be set free by understanding the true ‘gnosis.’ Moreover, his docetic view does not appear to have been the typical view of Gnostics.”[32]