Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz has ignited a political and diplomatic firestorm over the future of the Gaza Strip after warning that Israel intends to remain there indefinitely. Speaking recently at a ceremony in the West Bank settlement of Beit El, Katz said the Israeli military would “never leave” Gaza and vowed to establish military outposts in the northern part of the enclave.
“When the time comes, God willing, we will establish in northern Gaza, Nahal outposts in place of the communities that were uprooted,” he said, referring to the Israeli settlements evacuated during the 2005 disengagement. Katz added that Israel was positioned “deep inside Gaza” to ensure past violence could not recur and insisted that “there will be no such thing” as an Israeli departure.
For latest news and analyses on Middle East, visit: Yello! Middle East
The reference to Nahal units was especially provocative. Historically, Nahal formations have combined military service with agricultural and pioneering activity and have often served as the foundation for permanent civilian settlements. By framing a continued Israeli presence as a replacement for communities dismantled nearly two decades ago, Katz appeared to openly endorse the resettlement of Gaza. This goal has long been championed by far-right factions within Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition, but has been formally rejected by the government and by Israel’s international allies.
Reaction to Katz’s remarks was swift, both domestically and internationally. Critics pointed out that his comments stood in direct contradiction to the US-backed “20-point plan” for a truce, which President Donald Trump had championed and which Israel and Hamas signed in October. The plan explicitly states that “Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza” and sets out a phased withdrawal of Israeli forces from the territory.
Gadi Eisenkot, a former chief of staff of the Israeli army and now a leading political opponent of Netanyahu, accused Katz of undermining national consensus. Eisenkot said the defence minister was “acting against the broad national consensus” and charged the government with duplicity. While formally endorsing the Trump plan, he argued, the coalition was “with the other hand” promoting “fables about isolated settlement nuclei” in Gaza, a course he warned endangered Israel’s security and international standing.
Washington also expressed displeasure. A US official said the remarks threatened to derail regional cooperation efforts, warning that “the more Israel provokes, the less the Arab countries want to work with them”. The official reiterated that the administration expected all parties to adhere strictly to the agreed withdrawal framework. Hamas quickly seized on Katz’s comments, with a spokesman describing the announcement as “a clear violation of the ceasefire agreement”.
Under mounting pressure, Katz’s office issued a clarification that amounted to a significant retreat from his earlier rhetoric. In a statement released shortly after the speech, the ministry insisted that “the government has no intention of establishing settlements in the Gaza Strip”. It claimed that Katz’s references to Nahal units “were made solely in a security context”, playing down the settlement connotations of his words. The contrast between the public speech and the written retraction, however, highlighted the disjointed and often contradictory messaging emerging from Israel’s leadership over the question of what comes next in Gaza.
The episode has once again exposed the fragility of the current ceasefire and exposed what some analysts describe as an internal “sovereignty conflict” within the Israeli government. Netanyahu has publicly ruled out the resettlement of Gaza, mindful of US opposition and broader diplomatic constraints. Yet influential figures within his coalition continue to plan for it openly. On the same day as Katz’s speech, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich addressed a separate gathering where he instructed his ministry to locate a building to serve as an administrative branch for “residents of the renewed settlements in Gaza”.
Smotrich went further, urging Netanyahu to press Trump to approve the annexation of large parts of the West Bank. Declaring that his “life’s mission is to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state”, Smotrich has become the most outspoken advocate of what he calls Israeli “practical sovereignty” over the occupied territories. Katz himself used the same phrase during the Beit El ceremony to describe the government’s approach to the West Bank, linking his Gaza comments to a broader ideological project.
Taken together, the remarks appear less a slip of the tongue than a reflection of a concerted push within parts of the coalition to reshape Israel’s long-term posture. While official statements continue to affirm adherence to international agreements and US diplomatic demands, rhetoric on the ground points in a different direction. Settlement expansion in the West Bank continues, and senior ministers signal to their political base an ambition to reoccupy Gaza on a permanent basis.
This duality complicates the next phases of the peace plan, which depend on the deployment of an international stabilisation force and the disarmament of Hamas. Both objectives become harder to achieve if Israeli leaders suggest that withdrawal is not genuine or temporary.