Katz and the Strategy of Expansion: A Reading of “Israel’s” Discourse
By Mustafa Awada
Lebanon – In a scene that clearly reflects the essence of the Zionist project-rooted in expansion and the imposition of force-the statements made by the “Israeli” occupation’s minister of war, Israel Katz, have laid bare what the enemy government has sought to conceal behind a shifting and evasive political discourse.
Between Al-Quds’ [“Jerusalem] occupied municipal hall and the “Beit El” settlement in the West Bank, Katz made statements affirming that Gaza, like the West Bank, remains firmly within “Israel’s” settlement agenda, and that claims of withdrawals or adherence to international commitments were merely short-term maneuvers, quick to disappear when circumstances allow.
Katz’s remarks, in which he pledged not to leave the Gaza Strip and called for the resettlement of its north, constituted a new link in a chain of expansionist ambitions that trample on the commitments of “Israeli” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as on the announced US plans led by President Donald Trump.
Despite the cosmetic retreat that followed pressure, the core of the discourse remained unchanged: the occupation is pressing ahead with imposing new facts on the ground, relying on surplus military power and the backing of the far right represented by ministers such as Bezalel Smotrich.
From here, the reality of “Israeli” policy comes into sharp relief: the hand of aggression stretches from Gaza to the West Bank, with settlement dovetailing with war in an attempt to destroy any political horizon and to entrench sovereignty by force as the sole option for a government that views Palestinian geography as nothing more than open space for annexation and Judaization.
Abu Al-Ghazlan: Gaza and Lebanon Are an Extension of the “Israeli” Expansionist Mindset
In a comprehensive reading of Katz’s statements, Islamic Jihad leader Haitham Abu Al-Ghazlan told Al-Ahed news website that these positions cannot be separated from the internal “Israeli” context and the decision-making crisis within the occupation government, nor from the structural expansionist trajectory that governs the entity’s behavior in Palestine and the region.
Abu Al-Ghazlan explained that Katz’s remarks do not rise to the level of announcing an official policy, but rather constitute rhetoric aimed at the far-right public, in an attempt to reassure it that the war on Gaza could yield political and geographic gains—not merely deterrent outcomes.
He added that this discourse reflects a clear contradiction within the government between Netanyahu’s commitments not to return to settlement activity and the mounting pressure from right-wing forces that see the war as an opportunity to reintroduce the settlement project in Gaza.
Regarding Lebanon, Abu Al-Ghazlan said the “Israeli” discourse reflects a tendency to impose a logic of deterrence by force and continuous positioning, through military pressure and attempts to alter the rules of engagement, without seeking a comprehensive war in the near term.
He added that the occupation views southern Lebanon as a preemptive front linked to the Gaza arena, driven by concern over its failure to achieve decisive outcomes and the difficulty of managing the conflict—prompting a policy of “harsh containment” rather than open confrontation.
Abu Al-Ghazlan noted that calls to reestablish settlements in Gaza expose an expansionist mentality that does not regard Gaza or southern Lebanon as closed files, but as arenas open to redefinition according to balances of power, reviving the logic of “buffer zones” and strategic depth that previously led to the occupation of southern Lebanon.
He warned that the continuation of this approach will transform the conflict from a political-military one into an open-ended existential confrontation, in which land and identity are at the heart of the struggle, settlements become direct military targets, and the occupation army is locked into permanent attrition—eliminating prospects for de-escalation or interim arrangements.
Abu Al-Ghazlan stressed that resistance forces must address this shift through a comprehensive strategic approach that exposes the expansionist project politically and in the media, reinforces deterrence equations, and coordinates arenas to prevent rhetoric from becoming imposed facts on the ground.
He explained that the message directed to the peoples of the region is that the struggle over land and identity remains open and requires constant vigilance and sustained preparedness to thwart any new expansionist project.
Abu Al-Ghazlan also affirmed that any escalation on Lebanese territory or repeated threats are not isolated events, but part of a broader “Israeli” strategy to manage multiple arenas while preserving surplus power and sustained pressure—keeping Lebanon under constant surveillance without sliding into a comprehensive war in the near term.
Al-Khatib: The Occupation Is Seeking an Illusory Regional Victory
For his part, Palestinian-Israeli” affairs specialist Taysir Al-Khatib argued that Katz’s positions fall within a frantic search for a “political achievement” the entity failed to secure through war, reflecting the depth of the structural crisis afflicting the Zionist project.
Al-Khatib explained that the Zionist mindset considers settlement one of the most important indicators of achievement on the ground, whether in the West Bank or Gaza, and that reviving the idea of settlement today is driven not by settlement needs per se, but by an attempt to compensate for the war’s political and military failure after the occupation proved unable to achieve any real political objective.
He noted that the enemy, despite all the criminal methods it employed in Palestine, Lebanon, and other arenas, failed to eliminate the resistance, break the will of the peoples, or impose displacement-pushing it to seek an illusory political victory through settlement rhetoric.
Al-Khatib said Katz’s statements reveal the nature of the historical crisis that has plagued the Zionist project since its inception: an internal and external crisis, and a structural inability to achieve a decisive victory despite military superiority.
He emphasized that talk of resettlement is little more than media statements for domestic consumption, and that the occupation’s ability to impose new facts on the ground is nearly impossible under current balances of power and the continued action of the resistance.
Al-Khatib also highlighted the regional dimension of the discourse, noting that the doctrine governing the entity’s military, security, and political institutions views the Middle East as a vital sphere for control-through pressure on surrounding states and the elimination of resistance forces.
He stressed that the core problem for the occupation is the persistence of the resistance and its capacity to deliver strategic blows despite all losses—an essential factor blocking “Israeli” hegemony.
He further asserted that attempts to impose control through broad security agreements, economic relations, or political influence are doomed to fail, as the peoples of the region—and even some regimes that once wagered on settlements—beginning to realize that this entity poses an existential threat to all.
Accordingly, resistance in Palestine, Lebanon, and Yemen, along with the steadfastness of the Islamic Republic, is today understood as strategic lines of defense for the Arab and Islamic worlds against a danger stretching from North Africa deep into West Asia.
Al-Khatib pointed to notable shifts in Western public opinion, particularly in the United States and European Union countries, where questions are increasingly being raised about the nature of this entity and its role and dominance over Western political decision-making.
He added that any attempts at internal settlements in Lebanon—whether by certain political currents or local groups—are detached from reality, as they aim to portray the enemy as a “defensive” party, while the facts show that “Israel” operates according to an expansionist doctrine and a military and security strategy targeting the region as a whole.
Al-Khatib concluded by emphasizing that the resistance in Lebanon today constitutes the first line of defense for the Arab and Islamic worlds, and that any failure to confront the occupation’s preemptive attempts in southern Lebanon would place the entire region under direct threat.
He affirmed that “Israeli” escalation against Lebanon is linked to the same expansionist policy targeting Gaza, and that the aim of these policies is to prevent the unification and interconnection of resistance forces across borders-making Lebanon a central pillar in “Israel’s” strategy of simultaneous pressure.
Comments
