Smotrich's Statements... Gaza Between Settlement Strategy and Electoral Gains

Mohammad Joudeh: Smotrich's statements reveal what lies behind the deadline set for "Hamas," placing Gaza at a strategic crossroads between containment and the re-imposition of comprehensive control.

Hani Abu Al-Siba': These statements come in a political and electoral context, as Israeli parties use the Gaza issue as an influential card in the upcoming elections.

Fayez Abbas: Smotrich is trying to enhance his presence to ensure his survival in the Knesset by adopting the dream of re-establishing settlements in the Strip, despite the limited feasibility of achieving this goal.

Nihad Abu Ghosh: The displacement plan and the occupation of Gaza have become a central option for the far-right government, which explains Israel's reluctance to implement its commitments under the Trump plan.

Suleiman Basharat: Smotrich's statements aim to create fear among Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims, given that the Zionist project is based on a policy of demographic replacement.

Yasser Manna': The idea of re-establishing settlements in the Gaza Strip is not new; it was proposed in the first weeks of the war, and the current discourse is a direct extension of this trend.

Ramallah - Exclusive to "Al-Quds"-

The statements by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich regarding the occupation of the Gaza Strip and the establishment of settlements there, if Hamas is not disarmed within the specified deadline, raise serious scenarios about the future of the Strip, amidst escalating discussions within Israeli political circles about a radical change in the existing reality. However, these statements may be understood within an electoral context.

In separate conversations with "Al-Quds," writers, political analysts, and specialists believe that these statements come within the context of electoral bidding, but they are interpreted as an indicator of trends within the Israeli government seeking to impose new realities on the ground, going beyond conflict management to re-establish direct control over the Strip, including settlement projects and long-term security arrangements.

He points out that linking the disarmament of the resistance with the option of occupation reflects a political vision that seeks to leverage field developments to impose a new equation in Gaza, which may open the door to a more complex phase at both political and humanitarian levels.

Intense Political Moment

Writer and political analyst Mohammad Joudeh believes that the recent statements by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich regarding the occupation of the Gaza Strip and the establishment of settlements there, coinciding with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's talk of a deadline for disarming Hamas, in addition to the positions of US Ambassador Mike Huckabee, reflect an intense political moment that cannot be separated from the internal Israeli balances, the nature of the relationship with the United States, and the shape of the regional order after the war.

Joudeh believes that Smotrich's statements reveal what lies behind the deadline set for Hamas, placing Gaza at a strategic crossroads between containment and the re-imposition of comprehensive control.

Clear Ideological Vision

Joudeh clarifies that Smotrich's statements do not represent merely a military threat, but rather express a clear ideological vision belonging to a current that considers the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 a strategic mistake, linking it to the rise of Hamas and the recurrence of rounds of confrontation.

According to Joudeh, within this perception, the talk of occupying the Strip and building settlements there reflects an attempt to reshape the demographic and sovereign reality in Gaza, and not merely to achieve security deterrence.

An Entry Point for Redefining the Legal and Political Status of the Strip

Joudeh points out that the timing of proposing the idea of occupation and settlement coinciding with a deadline for disarming Hamas carries deep political implications, as the demand for disarmament is not limited to being a security condition, but rather constitutes an entry point for redefining the legal and political status of the Strip. Failure to disarm may open the door to a scenario of complete control, while disarmament according to Israeli conditions means establishing a new security equation that keeps Israel in the upper hand.

Joudeh explains that Netanyahu is operating under conflicting pressures, between the demands of the religious and national right calling for a decisive resolution in Gaza, and international pressures, especially American, to avoid a permanent re-occupation that could lead to a widespread regional escalation.

Joudeh considers Smotrich's statements also represent a tool of pressure within the ruling coalition to ensure that no settlement is accepted that does not include a complete dismantling of Hamas's military structure.

Regarding the positions of US Ambassador Mike Huckabee, Joudeh believes that they are read in the region as an indicator of a current within the United States that provides intellectual or religious cover for Israeli expansionist discourse, which strengthens the confidence of the right-wing current in Israel even if it does not translate into official American policy.

A Political Warning Paving the Way for Resumption of Military Operations

Joudeh points out that disarming Hamas in the Israeli sense means ending its military and organizational capacity as a ruling force, but historical experiences show that complete disarmament is rarely achieved without a decisive military defeat or a major political settlement, which makes the proposed deadline closer to a political warning that paves the way for the possibility of resuming military operations.

Joudeh proposes four possible scenarios, including resuming the war with the aim of military decisive action and dismantling Hamas's structure, or reaching a long-term truce that restricts its capabilities in exchange for new humanitarian and administrative arrangements, or imposing permanent military control through buffer zones and a fixed military presence within the Strip, in addition to a weaker possibility of a broader political settlement within a regional framework.

Joudeh points out that the scene reflects a struggle within Israel between a vision that seeks to radically reshape the political map in Gaza, and another pragmatic one that focuses on deterrence and restoring calm, stressing that the next phase may constitute a decisive moment in determining the future of the Strip for many years to come.

Israeli Vision for Imposing Permanent Control

Writer and political analyst specializing in Israeli affairs Hani Abu Al-Siba' believes that Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich's statements regarding the occupation of the Gaza Strip and the establishment of settlements there came during a press interview that addressed the question "Why has no decisive action been taken in the Gaza Strip yet?" He points out that these statements reflect an Israeli vision based on imposing permanent control over the Strip and linking the future of Gaza to the complete disarmament of Hamas.

Abu Al-Siba' explains that Smotrich spoke about giving Hamas a deadline to disarm, considering that failure to do so would give Israel a justification to occupy the rest of the Gaza Strip, while emphasizing that security control would remain in the hands of the Israeli army, and that any future forces within the Strip must be disarmed and subject to Israeli decision, with the Israeli government rejecting any political or administrative role for Hamas in Gaza.

Abu Al-Siba' points out that Smotrich claimed that Israel currently controls more than 53% of the Gaza Strip's area, and considered this control permanent, announcing the government's intention to rebuild settlements and return settlers to the Strip.

Abu Al-Siba' draws attention to Smotrich's call for "soft displacement," by encouraging Gaza residents, especially youth, to emigrate amidst the destruction of homes and deteriorating living conditions. Smotrich stressed that the reconstruction of the Strip would be conditional on Hamas's disarmament, and that any rocket launch would be met with a resumption of military operations and the occupation of the rest of the Strip.

Statements in a Political and Electoral Context

Abu Al-Siba' explains that these statements come in a political and electoral context, as Israeli parties use the Gaza issue as an influential card in the upcoming elections, amidst Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's and Smotrich's efforts to regain the trust of the Israeli voter by proposing projects of complete control and re-settlement.

Push Towards Voluntary Migration

Abu Al-Siba' expects the Israeli government to continue placing obstacles in the way of any international arrangements or external forces to manage the Strip, while seeking pretexts to prolong the suffering of the residents with the aim of pushing them towards what is called "voluntary migration," pointing to a link between developments in Gaza and regional escalation, especially given the Israeli bet on disarming the resistance despite the difficulty of achieving this.

Abu Al-Siba' points out that the statements of US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, in which he spoke about Israel's control over the Middle East from a biblical perspective, reflected harmony with the trends of the Israeli right, despite the US State Department's assertion that those statements were taken out of context.

Abu Al-Siba' believes that these positions show that American support for Israel has gone beyond military and political aspects to adopting its regional goals.

Abu Al-Siba' believes that the escalation of extremist statements as elections approach reflects a competition between Israeli right-wing parties to win voters' support, stressing that the next phase will be characterized by more pressure and restrictions on Palestinians, in contrast to the Palestinians' continued reliance on steadfastness in the face of these policies.

Smotrich and the Attempt to Ensure His Survival in the Knesset

Writer specializing in Israeli affairs Fayez Abbas explains that Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich's statements regarding the occupation of the Gaza Strip and the re-establishment of settlements there are largely linked to internal electoral calculations, given his declining popularity and the possibility of his party failing to cross the electoral threshold in the upcoming Israeli elections. Abbas points out that Smotrich, through his hardline positions and statements, whether in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip, seeks to enhance his political presence and try to ensure his survival in the Knesset.

Abbas notes that Smotrich adopts a discourse based on the dream of re-establishing Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip, but the chances of achieving this goal remain limited, considering that the administration of the Strip will remain in the hands of the United States or within international arrangements that will not allow the return of Israeli settlement construction. Abbas believes that the next phase may witness a repetition of similar statements from far-right leaders regarding settlements in Gaza, within the framework of political bidding, pointing out that there have been attempts by right-wing groups to storm the border with the Gaza Strip, but they were turned back and warned of the consequences of these steps due to the danger they pose to those participating in them and to Israeli soldiers.

Smotrich and the Settlement Show

Regarding settlements in the West Bank, Abbas believes that a number of settlement outposts established during the last three years, with Smotrich as a minister in the Ministry of Defense, are nothing more than show outposts that are unlikely to turn into permanent settlements.

Abbas explains that Smotrich boasts about expanding these outposts, but the data on the ground indicate negative migration from the settlements towards the Green Line, explaining that about 1050 settlers left the West Bank last year, without any actual increase in the number of settlers, despite the tax facilities and government aid provided by Israel to encourage settlement.

Future of the Strip and Submission to American Decision

Abbas confirms that the issue of disarming Hamas and the future of the Gaza Strip will remain largely subject to American decision rather than a purely Israeli decision, pointing out that Israel may try to obstruct any American plan by raising conditions such as disarming Hamas or excluding the Palestinian Authority from managing the Strip.

The Option of Displacement is Still Valid

Writer and political analyst specializing in Israeli affairs Nihad Abu Ghosh explains that Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich's statements about the occupation of the Gaza Strip and the establishment of settlements there can be understood from two main angles. The first is related to political competition within Israel, where adopting extremist, racist, and more aggressive positions towards Palestinians gives their proponents more popularity amidst preparations for general elections expected before the end of 2026. Abu Ghosh points out that Smotrich's popularity and his bloc are currently hovering around the electoral threshold in most opinion polls, which pushes him to raise the bar of his political positions.

Abu Ghosh notes that the more important angle relates to the nature of the prevailing thinking among the far-right government in Israel, where the option of displacing Palestinians from the Gaza Strip, re-occupying it, and settling in it is still valid and occupies the thinking of Israeli right-wing leaders, as a means of permanently eliminating the Palestinian presence.

Abu Ghosh confirms that this trend is not limited to Gaza, but extends to the West Bank, amidst the complicity of the American administration and its silence on Israeli violations, and the close alliance between Washington and Tel Aviv in multiple regional files, starting from the war on Gaza to preparing for a potential confrontation with Iran.

Abu Ghosh explains that the displacement and re-occupation plan is no longer just extremist ideas put forward by marginal officials, but has become a central option for the far-right government, which explains Israel's reluctance to implement its commitments within US President Donald Trump's plan, especially withdrawing from the Yellow Line, opening crossings, bringing in aid, and starting the reconstruction of Gaza.

Abu Ghosh points out that Israel has reduced the first phase to recovering prisoners and bodies, and is currently seeking to limit the second phase to the item of disarming the resistance only.

Abu Ghosh explains that the positions expressed by US Ambassador Mike Huckabee reflect, in a crude and provocative manner, what the American administration is doing by adopting the Israeli security concept and remaining silent on the aggressions, recalling previous statements by US Ambassador Tom Barrack about the non-finality of the Sykes-Picot borders, and US President Donald Trump's decision to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the occupied Syrian Golan.

Abu Ghosh believes that the Israeli government believes it has a historic opportunity that may not be repeated to achieve the project of "Greater Israel" or "Complete Israel," benefiting from a comfortable right-wing majority, broad American support, Palestinian division, in addition to the state of weakness and disintegration in the Arab system.

Abu Ghosh calls for focusing on rebuilding Palestinian national action institutions and adopting a unified national program based on strengthening steadfastness and activating the tools of popular, political, diplomatic, and legal struggle, considering that unifying the Palestinian position can contribute to formulating a unified Arab position in confronting Israeli policies, especially after the war on Gaza brought the Palestinian issue back to the forefront of global attention as an issue of freedom, justice, and peace.

Statements Reflecting the Nature of the Colonial Settlement Project

Political writer and analyst Suleiman Basharat believes that Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich's statements regarding the re-establishment of settlements in the Gaza Strip cannot be separated from the broader political and ideological context that governs current Israeli policies, pointing out that adherence to re-settlement clearly reflects the nature of the colonial settlement project that Israel seeks to entrench on Palestinian land.

Basharat explains that settlement represents one of the primary tools and methodologies for strengthening the Israeli colonial project, which explains the rapid acceleration in Israeli measures aimed at expanding settlements and providing all necessary components to strengthen them, whether in the West Bank or by proposing the idea of returning to settlement in the Gaza Strip, in addition to the Israeli tendency to remain in the territories that Israel controlled in Syria and Lebanon.

Basharat points out that the Israeli project is not limited to strengthening control within Palestinian territories only, but also includes a broader expansionist dimension at the Middle East level, within a vision based on regional hegemony and control.

Israel, the Spearhead of the Zionist Movement

Basharat explains that Israel, from the perspective of the Zionist movement, represents the spearhead of a global project through which the Zionist movement seeks to impose its influence in the region as a strategic center in the world, which reinforces a growing feeling among the Zionist current that the opportunity is currently ripe to achieve these goals.

Basharat notes that US Ambassador Mike Huckabee's statements reflect the state of "euphoria" experienced by the global Zionist movement, where supporters and theorists of the Zionist project are now boasting about the political and field gains achieved during the current phase.

Basharat emphasizes that one of the important dimensions of Smotrich's statements is the attempt to create a state of fear among Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims, given that the Zionist project is fundamentally based on a policy of demographic replacement at the expense of the indigenous population.

Basharat believes that these statements aim to push Palestinians either to emigrate or to accept the fait accompli, by instilling a feeling that their chances of remaining on their land have become limited.

Basharat explains that the next phase may move towards two main paths. The first is the continued Israeli drive to strengthen the settlement project and impose new realities on the ground, including accelerating settlement in the West Bank and the possibility of re-establishing settlements in the Gaza Strip, a scenario that remains linked to Israel's ability to impose it without political or field obstacles.

The second path, according to Basharat, is related to the possibility of these plans colliding with regional and international variables, especially regarding the future of American influence in the Middle East, as Israel relies heavily on American power to support its project. Basharat believes that any decline in American ability to impose hegemony, or failure to achieve the goals of confrontation with Iran, could constitute a fundamental obstacle to establishing the settlement project, especially in light of indications of the disintegration of American-European alliances and the potential emergence of new international powers that could affect the level of support provided to Israel.

Disarmament as an Entry Point for Arranging the Governance System in Gaza

Writer and researcher specializing in Israeli affairs Yasser Manna' explains that Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich's statements about the occupation of the Gaza Strip and the establishment of settlements there reflect a clear ideological orientation that seeks to transform the war's objectives from merely dismantling Hamas's military capabilities to reshaping the sovereign and geographical reality in the Strip, thereby opening the way for imposing direct Israeli control.

Manna' points out that the timing of these statements coinciding with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's talk of a deadline for disarming Hamas indicates that the disarmament issue is being put forward as an entry point for rearranging the governance system in the Gaza Strip, noting that the failure of the political path could lead to the imposition of direct Israeli control or different forms of long-term security and military administration.

Manna' believes that the statements attributed to US Ambassador Mike Huckabee provide rhetorical cover that strengthens the confidence of the right-wing current within Israel, even if these positions do not translate into official American policy, which gives the Israeli right a wider scope to propose more hardline projects related to the future of the Gaza Strip.

Re-establishing Settlements in the Gaza Strip is Not New

Manna' points out that the idea of re-establishing settlements in the Gaza Strip is not new; it was proposed in the first weeks of the war by ministers and members of parliament from the Israeli right-wing current who called for the re-establishment of settlements that were evacuated in 2005, considering that the current discourse is a direct extension of this political trend that has accompanied the developments of the war since its beginning.

Expected Scenarios for the Future of the Gaza Strip

Manna' explains that the expected scenarios for the future of the Gaza Strip revolve around three main paths. The first is the possibility of reaching partial understandings regarding disarmament in exchange for establishing a ceasefire and setting new arrangements for managing the Strip with regional or international support, a path that is less costly politically and security-wise.

The second path, according to Manna', is the failure of the proposed deadline and a return to a widespread military operation that could pave the way for direct occupation or the imposition of long-term Israeli military administration.

Manna' points out that the third path is based on the continuation of a gradual pressure policy through limited military operations and the expansion of buffer zones, while maintaining the threat of war without reaching the stage of complete control.

Manna' explains that the direction of developments will be determined in light of the results of mediation efforts, the balances of the ruling coalition in Israel, and the extent of the ability of various parties to bear the cost of any potential escalation.