Israel’s Minister Just Confirmed the Ceasefire Was a Lie — On Twitter

Right, so all of Israeli remaining living hostages have been released under the terms of the Israel-Hamas ceasefire deal, but Netanyahu’s deranged Defence Minister Israel Katz has posted on X that the “great challenge” after the exchanges would be the “destruction of all of Hamas’s tunnels in Gaza,” and saying he had “instructed the IDF to prepare,” and name-checking a future US-“supervised” mechanism that would apparently allow them to do so. That is not a rumour or a leak; it is the minister of defence posting on social media an operational directive yet to come. This truce was sold as a humanitarian step towards hopefully permanent peace, though of course we all feared that Israel would break it at some point; Katz has all but announced that intention already. But are any of us surprised?
Right, so it took less than three days for Israel’s government to puncture its own ceasefire it seems. This morning, as the first Israeli hostages crossed the border under Red Cross escort, Defence Minister Israel Katz had already announced online that the country’s “great challenge” after the exchanges would be the destruction of all of Hamas’s tunnels in Gaza, having tweeted out that:
‘Israel's great challenge after the phase of returning the hostages will be the destruction of all of Hamas's terror tunnels in Gaza, directly by the IDF and through the international mechanism to be established under the leadership and supervision of the United States. This is the primary significance of implementing the agreed-upon principle of demilitarizing Gaza and neutralizing Hamas of its weapons. I have instructed the IDF to prepare for carrying out the mission.’
So you’ve just declared to the world that you’re going to start pounding Gaza again when you’ve got your hostages back? That is the inference right? The ceasefire brokered by Washington under the revived Trump framework forbids Israeli offensive operations inside Gaza. Katz’s statement therefore was not commentary — it was an order that directly contradicted the agreement he was meant to uphold. That Netanyahu has signed. The post is a confession of intent to break the truce, broadcast in real time.
Katz’s phrasing was explicit military syntax. “I have instructed” is not political rhetoric; it is a record of a chain-of-command directive. The ceasefire text limits Israeli forces to defensive posture along established corridors. Yet tunnel destruction cannot be performed from those positions. Every technique for neutralising subterranean networks — explosive demolition, bore-drilling, flooding — requires engineers and explosives placed inside Gaza.
Washington has also already confirmed that no US troops will operate there, ruling out any “international mechanism” capable of doing the work. Katz’s statement, framed as coordination with allies, thus collapses under its own logistics. It is an impossible mission whose real purpose is to justify the inevitable breach of the ceasefire: when Hamas rejects foreign troops on its territory as they will certainly do, having not been agreed to, Israel can claim “non-compliance” and restart the war and no doubt the mainstream media will carry that narrative.
Israel calls this next phase “demilitarisation.” But there should be no next phase except their own withdrawal, not stripping away weapons to secure peace when that isn’t even part of the current ceasefire phase anyway, it comes in phase 2. In practice, it means the detonation of whatever Israel feels like destroying, that is even left standing, under the pretext that tunnels run beneath them. The same euphemism has appeared in every prior Israeli operation. “Targeting Hamas infrastructure” has translated into bombing apartment blocks, schools, and medical sites. By redefining mass destruction as technical maintenance, officials like Katz recast war crimes as engineering projects. His statement is bureaucratic cover for further assault.
Issuing an unachievable instruction serves a political purpose. It sets up a self-fulfilling rationale for renewed hostilities. When the ceasefire fails — as it must under the terms he has declared — the government will claim that Hamas violated the “demilitarisation” clause. This pattern is not hypothetical; it is how every prior truce has ended. Israel signs, redefines, and then blames. Katz’s post simply made that process public. They are so arrogant they don’t even hide it.
While international media speaks of “prisoner releases,” these are of course hostages too many of them. Israel still holds about 9,000 Palestinians, roughly 3,500 without charge, so hostages in which case. Hamas held twenty living Israeli hostages out or an original 251. The disparity is not incidental — it is structural, but the media never speaks of Israeli hostages. It becomes unavoidable when you consider that Israel are to release some 2000 individuals in exchange. Israel has used imprisonment as population management for decades. Administrative detention allows indefinite holding based on secret evidence, with even children being seized. By any ordinary definition, that is hostage-taking by state authority and its gone on for years. The exchange ratio — one Israeli for a hundred Palestinians — exposes who truly operates as a detaining power.
Israel’s own actions disprove the claim that the war was about rescuing hostages. In December 2023, Israeli soldiers killed three captives who emerged waving a white flag. Earlier investigations by Haaretz and others confirmed that the Hannibal Directive — authorising lethal fire to prevent capture — was invoked on 7 October 2023. Former defence Minister Yoav Gallant has even admitted it himself. The doctrine accepts the possibility of Israel killing its own people to deny Hamas leverage to demand Israel release the hostages they hold. Once that principle is institutionalised, the “hostage rescue” story becomes a communications exercise. Katz’s timing — planning new strikes before all captives return — proves the point: the hostages were the justification, not the constraint.
Katz’s declaration also keeps Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition alive. The Prime Minister’s political survival depends on two far-right partners, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, who both oppose any halt to the campaign. Ben-Gvir has demanded that Gaza be “erased.” Smotrich insists Israel must retain control “for security.” Netanyahu himself said back in August that Israel “intends to take control of all Gaza.” He repeated this month that Hamas “will be disarmed and Gaza demilitarised.” Katz’s order converts those political pledges into a military plan. Ending the war would collapse the coalition; continuing it keeps Netanyahu in office.
Under international humanitarian law, preparations for renewed hostilities during a truce are themselves violations. Katz’s instruction — specific, public, and forward-looking — meets that definition. It signals intent to recommence occupation by force. The law of occupation turns on “effective control.” Destroying tunnels throughout Gaza requires regaining that control. The Defence Minister’s own words establish mens rea — intent — in advance of the act.
Katz’s reference to an American-led “international mechanism” is fictitious. US officials have ruled out any deployment inside Gaza; no multinational structure exists to execute or supervise tunnel demolition. It wraps unilateral Israeli decisions in the illusion of some sort of partnership. The technique should be familiar to us by now: label aggression as cooperation, and Western capitals will nod along rather than contradict an ally in public.
In earlier wars, Israeli leaders hid behind the language of reaction — every strike portrayed as retaliation. Katz dispenses with that cover. His statement assumes a world too numb or complicit to object. When the former Scottish First Minister Humza Yousaf said in response to Katz’ tweet, amongst many others, that “They don’t even bother hiding it,” he hit the nail on the head. They aren’t even hiding the fact that they are defying the very agreement they signed up to, because they always get away with it.
The United Nations urged that the hostage deal be used to move toward ending occupation. Instead, Israel’s own Defence Minister plans its continuation and has issued instruction accordingly.
Meanwhile, Gaza remains in ruins: two million people displaced, most of its hospitals barely functional – no medical aid has thusfar been allowed in, so Israel are already breaching rules over aid - its population surviving on minimal aid deliveries still controlled by Israel’s military. Katz’s order means that even this fragile pause is temporary.
Since 2014, every major Israeli operation in Gaza has followed the same cycle. The 2014 truce ended with new assassinations; the 2021 pause led to further strikes within weeks; the 2023 “humanitarian breaks” were used for re-targeting. The 2025 ceasefire differs only in honesty. This time, the next stage was declared before the current has even finished, has barely begun. What Israel calls peace is in reality just an intermission in the hostilities.
Behind the language of tunnels and mechanisms are civilians. Ninety percent of Gaza’s population has been displaced. Entire districts lack potable water. Hospitals run at ten percent capacity. If bombing resumes under the banner of “demilitarisation” now, casualties will mount again among a population already half-starved. Each hostage returning to Israel does so against the backdrop of thousands of Palestinians still imprisoned. The humanitarian arithmetic remains grotesquely one-sided. And people will rightly ask, you’ve got your hostages back, why are you still bombing Gaza? That was the reason they went in to begin with wasn’t it?
Katz’s statement is not merely reckless; it is evidentiary. It documents intent before commission. Should the conflict reignite, prosecutors and investigators will not need leaks or whistle-blowers this time. The Defence Minister’s own words will suffice. He has supplied the timestamp, the directive, and the scope. In the language of law, the confession already exists.
The absence of consequence illustrates a deeper problem: international law is applied selectively. The same action by another state would trigger sanctions. In Israel’s case, it triggers excuses. Western governments translate every Israeli escalation into “security.” The result is a hierarchy of legality in which allies of power are immune. That impunity is what sustains the genocide far more effectively than weapon shipments.
A genuine ceasefire would need independent monitors, full Israeli withdrawal, lifting of the blockade, due process for detainees, investigation of war crimes, and reconstruction led by Palestinians. None of these conditions appear in Israeli planning. Instead, officials speak of “control” and “demilitarisation.” Those terms signal permanence, not peace. The genocide’s next phase has already been bureaucratically prepared.
If Israel resumes attacks once hostages are home, every ally that justified the war on humanitarian grounds will own that decision. The claim that the campaign was about saving lives will collapse. Governments that defended every strike as tragic necessity will confront evidence that the next assault was pre-planned. Katz’s order is a record those allies cannot disown.
The sequence is straightforward. Katz orders tunnel destruction. Tunnel destruction requires invasion. Invasion violates ceasefire. Therefore, the order equals breach. Netanyahu declares intent to control all Gaza; his coalition depends on war; every previous truce has ended the same way. The inference of future violation is not speculation — it is pattern recognition based on repeated conduct.
Once intent is declared publicly, responsibility transfers to the world that hears it. Katz’s statement ends the possibility of claiming ignorance. The next round of bombardment, if it comes, will not be a surprise but an act executed after open warning. So the moral question now belongs to the observers, not only the perpetrators.
On paper the truce remains in place. In practice, Israel’s Defence Minister has already written its expiry notice. His order to the army cannot be fulfilled without breaking the agreement. The confession is public, the chain of command traceable, the humanitarian stakes undeniable. When the next strikes begin, no one will be able to say they did not know.
The ceasefire that was meant to prove Israel’s restraint has instead proven its intent. Katz’s statement is not an accident of language; it is the moment Israel admitted that peace was never the goal. What happens now will decide not only Gaza’s fate but whether the international system still recognises a difference between a truce and a trap. And will those defending Israel today, still do so tomorrow, when hostages are no longer the issue?
Netanyahu himself has shown intent to get out of this ceasefire as well, though hasn’t been as explicit as his defence minister has been. In his case, he doesn’t have to though – he’s never signed a ceasefire yet in his career he hasn’t broken. Get all the details of that story in this video recommendation here as your suggested next watch.
Please do also hit like, share and subscribe if you haven’t done so already so as to ensure you don’t miss out on all new daily content as well as spreading the word and helping to support the channel at the same time which is very much appreciated, holding power to account for ordinary working class people and I will hopefully catch you on the next vid. Cheers folks.