Now I think that’s just fun. It sounds wrong, of course, but it probably isn’t. It sounds like “eyes,” which would require a plural verb, “have.” But -ize is not a noun, like “eyes;” it is a “word-forming element” used to make verbs. As a “word-forming element,” it does not qualify as any of the parts of speech I am familiar with. 
If the formulation, “the –ize has it” is wrong, it may be because “the” does not properly apply to the suffix, -ize. Can “word-forming elements” take definite articles?  Or is it the case that some “word-forming elements” can take definite articles and some can’t.
Let’s take “-ify” as another relevant case. This is, obviously, also a “verb-forming element” but it is also a verb. It derives from the Latin facere, “to make.”  So if I “specify,” I “make specific” something that was not specific before. For our purposes, the case of -ify is difficult because it doesn’t sound like another English word, the way -ize does. If there were two f’s, it would suggest the slang word “iffy,” meaning uncertain, but there are not two f’s.
In this difficult matter, I am going to rule in my own behalf. Because it would be proper to say “the word-forming element” I am going to say it is proper to say “the -ize”—meaning “the word-forming element -ize.
Besides, I have gained some courage from Jeff Aronson, a clinical pharmacologist, who wrote an article in the British Medical Journal called “-ize right.” That might be just a little cheeky for a Brit, when the British use has consistently been -ise instead of –ize, but I take heart from it anyway.
It couragizes me.
 Because it turns nouns into verbs, however, it brings about a very substantial change. If -ize denotes the new outcome, then we know what the previous condition was. A personal greeting card, for instance, cannot be “personalized.” If you can “personalize” it, then it was not personal before.
 Can newspapers?
 And a host of other meanings. “To make” is the meaning of interest to this investigation.