Israeli defense minister vows “we will never leave Gaza” despite U.S. peace plan
- Israeli Defense Minister rejects a full withdrawal from Gaza.
- His comments contradict official Israeli and U.S. policy.
- He initially suggested rebuilding settlements in Gaza.
- Facing backlash, his office walked back the settlement remarks.
- He later reaffirmed a permanent Israeli security zone inside Gaza.
In a declaration that has sent shockwaves through diplomatic circles, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz has stated that Israel “will never leave Gaza.” This unequivocal rejection of a full withdrawal, repeated multiple times in recent days, directly contradicts the official policies of his own prime minister and the United States, exposing a deep rift within the Israeli government and threatening a fragile peace. The minister’s musings about reestablishing Israeli outposts in the Palestinian enclave have drawn fierce criticism for being dangerously inflammatory at a critical juncture, forcing a hasty and revealing retreat.
Get Awesome Patriot Gear Today! Pay Just S&H For Most Items!
The controversy erupted on Tuesday during a ceremony in the occupied West Bank settlement of Beit El. There, Katz pledged to rebuild settlements in northern Gaza that Israel abandoned in 2005. “We are deep inside Gaza, and we will never leave Gaza, there will be no such thing,” he stated. He added, “When the time comes, God willing, we will establish in northern Gaza Nahal outposts in place of the communities that were uprooted.”
A direct challenge to allies
These remarks represent a direct challenge to the U.S.-brokered peace plan that paused the latest Gaza war. That plan, endorsed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, explicitly states that “Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza” and outlines a full Israeli military withdrawal. Katz’s vision of permanent “Nahal outposts” – military-agricultural units historically used to seed civilian settlements – is seen by critics as a blueprint for a de facto annexation, piece by piece.
The backlash was swift. Former Israeli chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot accused the government of selling “fables” while paying lip service to the peace plan. More critically, U.S. officials were reported to be displeased, demanding clarification. Facing this pressure, Katz’s office quickly issued a walk-back, asserting “the government has no intention of establishing settlements in the Gaza Strip,” and that his comments were made “solely in a security context.”
Walking back or doubling down?
Yet, just days later, Katz doubled down on the core of his message, demonstrating that the retraction was more about wording than intent. “In Gaza, Israel will never fully withdraw — there will be a significant security area inside the Strip,” he insisted at a conference. He dismissed the notion he had reversed himself, quipping, “reverse is something I only do when driving.”
This pattern is revealing. The initial, sweeping statement lays bare the ultimate objective, while the subsequent “clarification” attempts to manage the international fallout. It follows a familiar playbook: test the boundaries, gauge the reaction, and adjust the rhetoric while advancing the facts on the ground. The defense minister’s comments are not a rogue opinion but a reflection of powerful factions within the governing coalition. Far-right ministers have openly called for reoccupation and settlement in Gaza, viewing the current war as a historic opportunity.
The context extends beyond Gaza. At the same Beit El event, Katz boasted of “practical sovereignty” in the West Bank, approving 1,200 new settlement homes. He admitted that formal annexation is not currently possible “due to the circumstances,” but the relentless expansion continues. This two-pronged strategy – cementing control in the West Bank while plotting a permanent foothold in Gaza – aims to foreclose any possibility of a viable Palestinian state.
Historically, this moment echoes the decades-long project of settlement expansion, which has systematically eroded the territorial basis for a two-state solution. The use of “Nahal” units is particularly symbolic, hearkening back to a method used for decades to establish facts on the ground that the international community later deemed illegal. Katz’s rhetoric suggests a desire to replay that strategy in Gaza.
Ultimately, the episode exposes a troubling truth for the United States and other mediators. The Israeli government is speaking with two voices. One, for external consumption, speaks of temporary security measures and peace plans. The other, voiced by key ministers, speaks of permanent possession and settlement. The gap between these narratives is not a misunderstanding but a fundamental contradiction. It raises a sobering question for the world: Can a peace process survive when a core party’s senior officials openly reject its foundational principle? The defense minister’s words are not a slip of the tongue but a clear signal of intent, and the world would be wise to listen.
Sources for this article include:
