Dr. Ahmed Rafiq Awad: The rapid American anger at Katz's statements stems from considering them disruptive to Trump's plan, especially regarding the transition to the second phase
Mohammed Abu Alan Draghma: Katz's statements should be understood within the framework of electoral bidding, especially in light of the absence of any official Israeli decision confirming this direction
Niveen Abdel Hadi: These positions cannot be dealt with as implementable policy in light of the clear American rejection of any change in the war-ending plan
Dr. Abdel Majid Sweilem: Show-off statements that enjoy no acceptance and reflect concern in the ruling coalition that Netanyahu is heading towards making concessions required by America
Nizar Nazal: Any settlement in Gaza would disrupt the broader American project in the region, and Washington may allow Katz's statements but will not allow their implementation
Lubib Tah: Katz's statements are not transient but represent a mix of electoral discourse and the strategic vision and political and military doctrine of the Zionist project
The statements of Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant (wait, correction: the text says يسرائيل كاتس, which is Yisrael Katz) regarding settlement in the Gaza Strip come to stir controversy, quickly retracted under direct American pressure, revealing that the goal of launching them was more electoral showmanship than practical.
And writers and political analysts, in talks with "Al-Quds", see that these statements came in a context of internal competitions within the right-wing camp, where tough language is exploited to gain popular support and raise the level of discourse, without reflecting implementable government orientations on the ground, but also coming within an electoral context.
And according to the writers and analysts, these positions show that the settlement file is used as a tool to send multiple messages, internally to prove strength before the Israeli street, and externally to test international reactions, while keeping Gaza's future ambiguous.
And the writers and experts see that Washington plays a fundamental role in regulating this Israeli discourse on settlement in Gaza, having allowed verbal escalation for internal consumption, but set strict limits to prevent its transformation into practical steps, fearing failure of President Donald Trump's plan to stop the war in Gaza.
A deeply rooted strategic position in the core of the Zionist project
The writer and political analyst Dr. Ahmed Rafiq Awad sees that the statements of Israeli Defense Minister Yisrael Katz regarding settlement in the Gaza Strip, which he launched and retracted after hours under American pressure, cannot be described as tactical or circumstantial, but reflect a deeply rooted strategic position in the core of the Zionist project, even if retracted formally.
And he explains that this retraction does not change the essence of the statements, as Katz expresses a complete vision that sees settlement as a central tool and more lethal than direct military force, as it is not limited to the geographical dimension only, but forms a cultural, economic, security, military, and demographic weapon, aiming to change the existing reality comprehensively.
And Awad points out that settlement in Gaza, like in the West Bank, serves long-term strategic goals of the current Israeli government and successive governments, including dismantling the Palestinian people, controlling their resources, preventing the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, and cutting off the geographical and political connection between the West Bank and Gaza Strip, in addition to reproducing old-new solutions emanating from the Zionist project with biblical roots.
And Awad considers that these statements cannot be separated from attempts to disrupt the relationship between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the American administration, specifically President Donald Trump's plan, leading to embarrassing Washington and politically besieging it, despite the American administration opposing such steps verbally only, without opposing them practically on the ground.
Washington is unwilling to rein in Israel
And Awad points out that the United States moves out of diplomatic motivation aimed at not angering its allies or the domestic public opinion, but in reality is unwilling to rein in Israel or prevent it from consolidating settlement in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
And he notes that the rapid American anger at Katz's statements stems from considering them disruptive to Trump's plan, especially regarding the transition to the second phase, and from arousing concern among allies, funders, and parties nominated to participate in the planned stabilization forces.
And he confirms that these statements suggest that Israel is not interested in cooperating with any party, nor in implementing Resolution 2803, nor in transitioning to the second phase, but is committed to occupation as the only option, which practically means that funders will not provide financial support, and that any possible stabilization force will not come to serve the Israeli agenda.
And Awad sees that the American response, despite its speed and apparent severity, is not a real response to build on, warning against exaggerating reliance on the American position, as it often ends with adopting the Israeli position, despite Katz's formal retraction and the plan remaining on the table.
Individual positions of some far-right ministers
The writer specializing in Israeli affairs Mohammed Abu Alan Draghma considers that Israeli statements about re-settlement in Gaza, the latest being Katz's statements, still fall within the framework of individual positions of some ministers belonging to the far-right, and do not reflect an official government direction or a binding political decision at the state level so far.
And he explains that talk of settlement in Gaza is limited to personalities known for their tough discourse, such as Itamar Ben-Gvir, Bezalel Smotrich, and Rotem Shtruck, and Yisrael Katz recently joined them, without this being matched by any official government decision or practical steps on the ground, such as approving budgets or adopting implementation plans. According to Draghma, these statements come in the context of attempting to gain more support within the Israeli right-wing street, especially with Israel entering a sensitive political phase.
And he points out that the electoral context plays a central role in escalating this discourse, as Israel prepares for general elections, in addition to Likud's tendency to hold internal elections (primaries), which pushes some of its leaders to launch tough positions to strengthen their political presence within their party bases.
And Draghma considers that Katz's statements about settlement in Gaza should be understood within this framework, especially in light of the absence of any official decision confirming this direction.
And in contrast, Draghma emphasizes the existence of a fundamental difference between what is raised regarding Gaza and what is actually happening in the West Bank, where the Israeli government recently approved the establishment of 19 new settlements, a step reflecting a clear strategic direction to enhance settlement as much as possible, aiming to eliminate any future political horizon, and definitively end the possibility of applying the two-state solution.
Despite ruling out the return of settlement to Gaza in the near term, Draghma did not deny that the occupation army seeks to impose long-term security control over the sector, and perhaps military occupation, considering that this path is different from the decision to re-settle, which requires governmental consensus and political and economic preparations not currently available.
And Draghma points out that reactions within Israel itself reinforce this assessment, as Israeli media spoke of shock in political circles following Katz's statements, and questions about their background, before the minister retracted indirectly.
And he notes that the American administration does not show a tough position towards these statements, aware that they are part of internal political competitions, and knowing that settlement in Gaza is not practically raised in the near term, while continuing to turn a blind eye to the accelerating settlement expansion in the West Bank.
"Marathon of show-off statements"
The writer and political analyst Niveen Abdel Hadi, editor-in-chief of Al-Dustour newspaper, sees that the far-right government in Israel has entered what resembles a "marathon of show-off statements", in which its ministers compete to launch positions far from political balance, carrying serious risks to the Palestinian cause, and to any real efforts to achieve fair and comprehensive peace and end the war on Gaza.
And she explains that the recent statements by Katz about future settlement in Gaza fall within this provocative context, noting that they do not reflect an integrated strategic vision as much as they express an electoral tendency and attempts to rally the far-right within Israel.
And Abdel Hadi confirms that these statements inject "political poisons" into the atmosphere of seeking peace, and contradict the Palestinian, Arab, and international efforts aimed at stopping the war and granting Palestinians their legitimate rights.
And she points out that Katz's talk about Israel's incomplete withdrawal from Gaza, and his pledge to establish new military and agricultural bases north of the sector instead of settlements, is a dangerous verbal escalation, especially as it came at a sensitive time when various parties are working to establish a political path to end the war.
And Abdel Hadi sees that these positions, despite their danger, cannot be dealt with as implementable policy, in light of the clear American rejection of any change in the war-ending plan.
And she confirms that Washington, as the main sponsor of the agreement to end the war in Gaza, will not allow undermining Trump's proposals through unilateral Israeli statements carrying ambiguous and dangerous dimensions.
And Abdel Hadi points out that the American reaction came quickly, where the American administration expressed surprise at Katz's statements, and demanded official clarifications, while affirming the necessity of the Israeli army's withdrawal from Gaza as an integral part of the American plan.
And she stresses that the insistence of the occupation government's ministers on launching statements contradicting the agreed path will lead to more political isolation, and perhaps put the Israeli government in direct dilemma with the American administration.
And Abdel Hadi points out that these statements, even if they cause tension or negative results on the ground, will remain mostly within the framework of electoral propaganda or attempts to "taint" the peace path, in light of the decisive American rejection of any return to settlement in Gaza.
And she explains that dealing with these positions should be with extreme caution Palestinian and Arab, with clear condemnation of them, and not underestimating the possibility that some Israeli government ministers may try to translate their words into practical steps, even partially.
Statements lacking any real political value
The writer and political analyst Dr. Abdel Majid Sweilem considers that Katz's statements about settlement in Gaza lack any real political value, describing them as show-off statements that their issuer does not believe and do not enjoy acceptance to be relied upon within Israel itself, in addition to lacking credibility at the international level.
And he explains that what came from Katz falls within the framework of struggles and bidding within the Israeli government coalition, and reflects a state of apprehension and concern prevailing within it, especially with the growing conviction in wide circles in the coalition that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is heading towards making concessions required by America.
According to Sweilem, these bidding seem outside any political or realistic logic, and do not express implementable policies.
And he points out that these statements are nothing but attempts to reassure the Israeli interior and the ruling coalition, in light of real fears of Israeli submission, whatever its form or formula, to American dictates, confirming that this submission has become inevitable in light of the existing balances, and that the positions declared by Katz or others, even Netanyahu himself, cannot constitute a real exit from this path.
And Sweilem points out that there are ongoing differences, even if not clearly appearing in the media, between the American and Israeli positions on several major files, including the Turkish role in the region, mechanisms for dealing with Hamas's weapon, the situation in Lebanon and the way to approach Hezbollah's weapon file. As for the Iranian file, Sweilem sees it settled, considering it an American file par excellence, and the decision in it belongs to the United States not Israel.
And Sweilem notes that the new American National Security Document, presented in Trump's name, but in essence the product of a broad dialogue within what is known as the American "deep state", clarifies that the Middle East is no longer an advanced priority in the American interests scale, and that engagement in wars is no longer raised within the current strategy.
And he confirms that the United States sees that Trump's plan for the region must start and be implemented, and there is no room for Israel to bypass the framework set by Washington, as any Israeli attempt to exit this context will create major crises within the ruling coalition.
And Sweilem points out that Washington will deal with Katz's statements in the usual way, by ignoring them and focusing on actions, placing these statements in the margin category, considering them "political bravado" that has no relation to reality or regional developments.
Election propaganda wrapped in a strategic dimension
The researcher specializing in Israeli affairs and conflict issues Nizar Nazal considers that Katz's statements fall within the framework of election propaganda wrapped in a strategic dimension, confirming that they are not feasible in the foreseeable term, and do not reflect a practical direction that Israel can actually pursue.
And he explains that these statements contradict the American vision currently presented, which speaks of transitioning to the second phase of understandings, including an Israeli withdrawal from areas still occupied in Gaza.
And Nazal notes that any real attempt to implement what Katz proposes requires a long time and radical changes in the regional and international contexts, which makes it, at the present time, mere political discourse for internal consumption.
And Nazal points out that Katz addresses through these statements the audience of the ideological right and settlers, at a sensitive political timing with the approach of the 2026 Israeli elections, and amid fierce competition within the right camp itself, especially with the pressures exerted by both Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich.
And he confirms that raising settlement in Gaza represents a high rhetorical ceiling and not implementable, given that the sector constitutes a security, demographic, and economic burden on Israel.
And Nazal explains that the real goal of these statements is to blackmail the right-wing partners within the Israeli government, and redefine the war as an "existential war", which justifies continuing military operations and not fully committing to stopping the war, in addition to attempting to project what is happening in Lebanon onto Gaza and create future negotiation pressure papers.
Regarding the American position, Nazal stresses that Washington deals with Katz's statements as internal political and media noise, and will not allow their transformation into practical policies.
And he explains that the United States looks at Gaza from the angle of regional stability and preventing the explosion of situations with Egypt and Jordan, especially in light of the state of military movement and instability that the Middle East witnessed after the Gaza war.
And Nazal confirms that any Israeli settlement in Gaza would disrupt the broader American project in the region, at its head the normalization path, and expel Arab allies from the scene, in addition to creating a clash with the official European position and the United Nations, noting that Washington may allow Katz the statements, but will not allow their implementation.
Katz's statements are not a political slip
The researcher and political analyst Lubib Tah considers that the statements of the Israeli Defense Minister regarding settlement in Gaza cannot be dealt with as a transient event or political slip, but represent a mix of electoral discourse and the strategic vision and political and military doctrine of the Zionist project, which has not changed since its inception, despite the change in international and regional circumstances and the change in its tools and mechanisms.
And he explains that the electoral dimension in these statements reflects one of the paradoxes of Israeli politics, where extremism, racism, colonial tendency, and military attitude towards Palestinians and Arabs become a basic means to harvest popularity within Israeli society, noting that any politician seeking to rise and achieve electoral gains finds himself forced to raise the level of aggressive discourse, which explains such statements in the context of internal competition.
In the strategic dimension, Tah stresses that Israel, according to its fixed vision, does not believe in final geographical borders, explaining that its borders, in the Israeli strategic mind, are the point where its army stands at a certain time point.
And Tah considers that this rule has become obvious and known worldwide, and that it forms the core of Israeli thinking that has not changed and will not change in the foreseeable future.
And he points out that the political and military doctrine, even the religious one, is based on expansion and seizure of others' lands and resources, under the pretext of security.
And Tah notes that the concept of security for Israel is a rolling concept, expanding continuously, where it starts by determining a certain point, then demanding a buffer zone, then establishing settlements, before moving to expansion again under the pretext of the need for "additional security", and this model may repeat not only in Palestine but perhaps in Lebanon and Syria.
And Tah points out that Israeli military expansion forms the other face of the political project, where military tools are used to serve political goals, while the political project is implemented through military mechanisms, confirming that the settlement project has been and remains one of the basic pillars of the Zionist project since the beginnings of the Zionist movement.
In commenting on the Defense Minister's retraction of his statements, Tah sees that what happened may be like a "test balloon" launched to measure reactions, but at the same time reflects what lurks within the Israeli political institution of ambitions and desires.
And he confirms that the rapid American opposition, and the request for clarifications, pushed Katz to retract and justify, despite the settlement ambitions not disappearing, recalling previous statements by Israeli ministers about settlement in Gaza, and even in Syria and Lebanon.
And Tah believes that the United States appears determined to implement its plan regarding Gaza in the current phase, despite the maneuvers of Israeli politicians, likely to proceed with it for reasons related to its own interests and the current international variables and circumstances.
شارك برأيك
Katz's Statements... Election Propaganda That Drew from His Credit After Being Forced to Retract Them