Share this post:
There is a saying that war is the continuation of business by other means. Israel seems to be trying to make its ceasefire with Hamas the continuation of genocide with a new excuse.
Israel launched air strikes on Gaza yesterday (October 29, 2025) that killed at least 104 Palestinians – including at least 35 children – and injured around 200 people, according to Gaza’s civil defence agency.
According to The Guardian,
Benjamin Netanyahu ordered the strikes on Tuesday evening after a firefight between Palestinian militants and Israeli troops, and amid growing anger over Hamas turning over body parts of a hostage whose remains Israeli troops had recovered two years before.
Netanyahu called an emergency meeting to discuss what he called Hamas violations of the ceasefire, as far-right figures in the Israeli government clamoured for a return to war.
It makes a good story. But is that all it is?
Note to readers
Vox Political is evolving – in THREE days!
I’m opening a new home for my reporting — The Whip Line on Substack — where independent journalism will be supported directly by readers.
From November 1, you’ll still get one free article here every day, but most of my work will appear on The Whip Line, available to subscribers whose paid contribution will make this reporting possible.
Join The Whip Line today and help keep independent journalism alive:
https://thewhipline.substack.com
Israel’s claims
Israel says that Hamas attacked Israeli troops in a portion of Gaza under Israeli control (sometimes referred to as the “yellow line” or a zone where Israeli forces are still active).
Israel also accuses Hamas of returning the remains of a hostage which Israel contends had already been partially recovered previously — framing this as a violation of the agreed terms regarding the return of bodies.
After its strikes, the Israeli military said it was resuming the enforcement of the ceasefire, implying that the attacks were reactive rather than a unilateral resumption of war.
Israel contends that any violations by Hamas provide it with a legal or political justification to carry out retaliatory strikes.
Hamas / Gaza / independent claims and counters
Hamas denies responsibility for the gunfire or attacks on Israeli troops that Israel cites.
Gaza media authorities (closely aligned with Hamas) say Israel has violated the ceasefire dozens of times since it came into effect, with dozens of Palestinian casualties.
Some analysts and observers say that from very early on, the ceasefire has been under strain, with “skirmishes” and retaliatory strikes from both sides.
United Nations experts have warned against continuing violations of the ceasefire and stressed that both parties must comply.
Observations and patterns in the record
Even in the first days of the ceasefire, Israel reportedly carried out strikes, which raised accusations from Gaza that the ceasefire was hollow.
There is ambiguity about what exactly constitutes a “violation” under the ceasefire terms — whether any gunfire, border skirmishes, failure to return bodies on time, or cross-line incidents count.
The Israeli published footage accusing Hamas of staging body recovery has been contested; e.g. some imagery and sequences were scrutinised by third parties (like AP) without clear verification of all the claims.
Why “who broke it first” is hard to determine — and how that ambiguity can be weaponised
States often exploit ambiguity in ceasefire agreements to frame their continued military operations as “responses” rather than offensives. There are key challenges in assessing Israel’s claims:
Asymmetry of evidence and access
Israel has far greater capture of surveillance, drone footage, and internal intelligence, which it can choose to release selectively.
Gaza is heavily devastated, communications disrupted, investigators have limited access, and many operations happen in tunnels or destroyed areas.
Independent observers (UN agencies, non-governmental organisations) may have incomplete or delayed access.
“Minor skirmishes” v major breach
Ceasefires frequently allow or tolerate limited “incidents” (shelling, sniper fire, border skirmishes) as “skirmishes,” not full rejection of the ceasefire. Israel often frames its actions as proportional responses to such skirmishes, not a wholesale abandonment.
The threshold for what triggers a full military response is often left vague or contested.
Narrative framing and legalistic interpretations
Israel frames certain actions (returning remains, burying bodies) as violations; Hamas or its backers dispute whether those fall under ceasefire rules.
The state with superior military and diplomatic weight often sets the narrative: “They attacked us first; we are only responding.”
Strategic incentives to provoke
If Israel wants a pretext to resume heavy strikes, it may be tempted to interpret or present an event as a violation.
Conversely, Hamas (or other groups) may avoid overt provocations that would justify full retaliation, but they might engage in ambiguous lower-level violence.
Ceasefire as a strategic tool
Ceasefires (or pauses) are rarely absolute; they are often tactical interludes used to regroup, reposition, rearm, or recalibrate political advantage.
The state with greater power (Israel) is better placed to violate the truce in controlled ways, while retaining the legitimacy of the ceasefire when useful (“We will resume enforcing it”).
Is there reason to believe Israel is using the ceasefire as cover for continuation?
Let’s get the answer out of the way immediately: Yes — there are several lines of reasoning (and some evidence) supporting such a suspicion:
Pre-existing pattern of violations
In the very early days of the truce, there were already reports of Israeli strikes or “violations.” Some commentators argue the ceasefire was “ostensibly” in place while Israel continued punitive operations.
High selectivity and sudden escalation
Israel tends to escalate immediately after reporting a violation (or claiming one). The speed and intensity of strikes suggest they may have been pre-planned rather than purely reactive.
Framing and discourse control
By positioning itself as morally and legally responding to Hamas violations, Israel seeks to maintain international support or at least avoid condemnation for breaking the ceasefire.
Ambiguous justification
The claims about body return and returning remains that Israel says were already known allow Israel to assert a technical violation (for example: wrong body) and thereby justify new strikes. That gives manoeuvring room.
Repeated pattern in other ceasefires
In previous ceasefire deals, there have been accusations — by both sides — of ceasefire violations, selective interpretations, and “pause” phases used for military recalibration.
Power imbalance
Israel’s dominant military capability makes it difficult for Hamas to resist heavily. Israel can calibrate attacks so that they maintain plausible deniability or legal justification while inflicting damage.
What independent organisations are saying
Amnesty International welcomed the ceasefire as a chance to stop the carnage but immediately framed the deal as only a first step — and has repeatedly warned that Israel’s policies and operations in Gaza amount to grievous rights abuses that must be addressed, not papered over by pauses.
Human Rights Watch has likewise emphasised that the ceasefire is not a substitute for serious action on humanitarian access and accountability, and it has pressed both sides to stop violations and allow independent investigations.
B’Tselem (Israeli human-rights group) has issued the strongest indictments on Israel’s conduct, accusing Israeli policy in Gaza — over the course of the campaign — of actions amounting to mass atrocities and calling for accountability. Their reports pre-date (and frame) how they view any subsequent “violations” under the ceasefire.
The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) is documenting a high humanitarian toll, widespread displacement and repeated incidents since the truce began; their situation reports stress that the truce is functionally fragile while hostilities, civilian harm and protection needs continue.
The ICRC/Red Cross and neutral intermediaries have repeatedly warned that returning the remains of hostages and recovering bodies will be extremely difficult because of rubble and destroyed sites — a practical limit on the speed of compliance with the ceasefire exchange rules. That caveat matters when one side accuses the other of “failing to return bodies.”
What this means for the question “who broke it first?”
Verification is hard.
Independent observers broadly confirm the ceasefire has been intermittently violated and that serious infractions have occurred — but they also stress access problems and the difficulty of independently verifying fast, localized claims about specific incidents. (OCHA, ICRC).
Both the pattern and independent reports cast doubt on purely reactive justifications for heavy strikes.
NGOs (Amnesty, HRW, B’Tselem) have warned that a pattern of strikes and civilian harm continued even during the pause, and they treat large escalatory attacks — especially against civilian areas or displaced-persons camps — as problematic regardless of the formal pretext. That doesn’t legally prove intent in any single incident, but it does weaken any simple “they shot first; we only responded” narrative.
Practical limits on the hostage/body exchanges matter.
The ICRC and other neutral actors have said that recovering remains in heavily-destroyed areas can be slow or impossible; where Israel claims Hamas “failed” to return bodies, independent intermediaries say the rubble and operational realities often explain delays. That complicates claims that missed returns are deliberate violations.
The consensus
There is credible, independent evidence that the ceasefire has been repeatedly strained and that Israel has continued operations that independent groups consider unlawful or disproportionate.
Amnesty, HRW and B’Tselem are all critical of Israeli conduct since the truce, OCHA documents the ongoing humanitarian crisis, and the ICRC warns recovery of remains will be slow.
Those facts make the simple, Israeli state-issued claim that “Hamas broke it first, therefore we hit back hard” not fully convincing without independent, incident-level verification.
The verdict
Given all the uncertainty:
It is not implausible that Hamas may have carried out smaller-scale violations (gunfire toward Israeli troops, sniper fire, etc.), even if the material impact was minor.
But whether those incidents legitimately triggered a massive strike killing 100+ people and involving multiple targets is highly doubtful.
The fact that Israel reasserts it is “resuming enforcement” after its strikes suggests they were not merely reactive responses, but part of an operational posture to maintain military pressure.
In practice, the ceasefire — like many others — seems to function less as a real cessation of hostilities and more as a regulated intermission, with both sides testing limits.
This Site’s reading — that Israel may be using the ceasefire to legitimize or mask ongoing operations — is consistent with what many analysts believe is the modus operandi in asymmetric conflicts of this nature.
While one cannot categorically prove Israel “broke it first,” there is abundant reason to doubt that Israel’s claims are entirely sincere or that its actions are always purely reactive. The pattern suggests Israel sees the ceasefire as a strategic instrument, not a cessation of war.
Never miss a Vox Political post!
Social media algorithms often hide what you want to read. If you’d like to get every article directly, here are your options:
RSS Feed – instant updates, no filters:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/get-every-vox-political-post-no-algorithms-no-blocks/
Mailing List – updates delivered to your inbox:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/join-the-vox-political-mailing-list/
Video Mailing List – updates go straight to your inbox:
https://dashboard.mailerlite.com/forms/1503041/155584006128141972/share
Discord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGm
Telegram Channel – every post, direct to your phone:
https://t.co/be9EMGHXFV
Support Vox Political!
With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.
You can help by making a donation:
https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical
Share this post:
Like this:
Like Loading...
Does anybody believe Israel’s new excuses for attacking Gaza?
Share this post:
There is a saying that war is the continuation of business by other means. Israel seems to be trying to make its ceasefire with Hamas the continuation of genocide with a new excuse.
Israel launched air strikes on Gaza yesterday (October 29, 2025) that killed at least 104 Palestinians – including at least 35 children – and injured around 200 people, according to Gaza’s civil defence agency.
According to The Guardian,
It makes a good story. But is that all it is?
Israel’s claims
Israel says that Hamas attacked Israeli troops in a portion of Gaza under Israeli control (sometimes referred to as the “yellow line” or a zone where Israeli forces are still active).
Israel also accuses Hamas of returning the remains of a hostage which Israel contends had already been partially recovered previously — framing this as a violation of the agreed terms regarding the return of bodies.
After its strikes, the Israeli military said it was resuming the enforcement of the ceasefire, implying that the attacks were reactive rather than a unilateral resumption of war.
Israel contends that any violations by Hamas provide it with a legal or political justification to carry out retaliatory strikes.
Hamas / Gaza / independent claims and counters
Hamas denies responsibility for the gunfire or attacks on Israeli troops that Israel cites.
Gaza media authorities (closely aligned with Hamas) say Israel has violated the ceasefire dozens of times since it came into effect, with dozens of Palestinian casualties.
Some analysts and observers say that from very early on, the ceasefire has been under strain, with “skirmishes” and retaliatory strikes from both sides.
United Nations experts have warned against continuing violations of the ceasefire and stressed that both parties must comply.
Observations and patterns in the record
Even in the first days of the ceasefire, Israel reportedly carried out strikes, which raised accusations from Gaza that the ceasefire was hollow.
There is ambiguity about what exactly constitutes a “violation” under the ceasefire terms — whether any gunfire, border skirmishes, failure to return bodies on time, or cross-line incidents count.
The Israeli published footage accusing Hamas of staging body recovery has been contested; e.g. some imagery and sequences were scrutinised by third parties (like AP) without clear verification of all the claims.
Why “who broke it first” is hard to determine — and how that ambiguity can be weaponised
States often exploit ambiguity in ceasefire agreements to frame their continued military operations as “responses” rather than offensives. There are key challenges in assessing Israel’s claims:
Asymmetry of evidence and access
Israel has far greater capture of surveillance, drone footage, and internal intelligence, which it can choose to release selectively.
Gaza is heavily devastated, communications disrupted, investigators have limited access, and many operations happen in tunnels or destroyed areas.
Independent observers (UN agencies, non-governmental organisations) may have incomplete or delayed access.
“Minor skirmishes” v major breach
Ceasefires frequently allow or tolerate limited “incidents” (shelling, sniper fire, border skirmishes) as “skirmishes,” not full rejection of the ceasefire. Israel often frames its actions as proportional responses to such skirmishes, not a wholesale abandonment.
The threshold for what triggers a full military response is often left vague or contested.
Narrative framing and legalistic interpretations
Israel frames certain actions (returning remains, burying bodies) as violations; Hamas or its backers dispute whether those fall under ceasefire rules.
The state with superior military and diplomatic weight often sets the narrative: “They attacked us first; we are only responding.”
Strategic incentives to provoke
If Israel wants a pretext to resume heavy strikes, it may be tempted to interpret or present an event as a violation.
Conversely, Hamas (or other groups) may avoid overt provocations that would justify full retaliation, but they might engage in ambiguous lower-level violence.
Ceasefire as a strategic tool
Ceasefires (or pauses) are rarely absolute; they are often tactical interludes used to regroup, reposition, rearm, or recalibrate political advantage.
The state with greater power (Israel) is better placed to violate the truce in controlled ways, while retaining the legitimacy of the ceasefire when useful (“We will resume enforcing it”).
Is there reason to believe Israel is using the ceasefire as cover for continuation?
Let’s get the answer out of the way immediately: Yes — there are several lines of reasoning (and some evidence) supporting such a suspicion:
Pre-existing pattern of violations
In the very early days of the truce, there were already reports of Israeli strikes or “violations.” Some commentators argue the ceasefire was “ostensibly” in place while Israel continued punitive operations.
High selectivity and sudden escalation
Israel tends to escalate immediately after reporting a violation (or claiming one). The speed and intensity of strikes suggest they may have been pre-planned rather than purely reactive.
Framing and discourse control
By positioning itself as morally and legally responding to Hamas violations, Israel seeks to maintain international support or at least avoid condemnation for breaking the ceasefire.
Ambiguous justification
The claims about body return and returning remains that Israel says were already known allow Israel to assert a technical violation (for example: wrong body) and thereby justify new strikes. That gives manoeuvring room.
Repeated pattern in other ceasefires
In previous ceasefire deals, there have been accusations — by both sides — of ceasefire violations, selective interpretations, and “pause” phases used for military recalibration.
Power imbalance
Israel’s dominant military capability makes it difficult for Hamas to resist heavily. Israel can calibrate attacks so that they maintain plausible deniability or legal justification while inflicting damage.
What independent organisations are saying
Amnesty International welcomed the ceasefire as a chance to stop the carnage but immediately framed the deal as only a first step — and has repeatedly warned that Israel’s policies and operations in Gaza amount to grievous rights abuses that must be addressed, not papered over by pauses.
Human Rights Watch has likewise emphasised that the ceasefire is not a substitute for serious action on humanitarian access and accountability, and it has pressed both sides to stop violations and allow independent investigations.
B’Tselem (Israeli human-rights group) has issued the strongest indictments on Israel’s conduct, accusing Israeli policy in Gaza — over the course of the campaign — of actions amounting to mass atrocities and calling for accountability. Their reports pre-date (and frame) how they view any subsequent “violations” under the ceasefire.
The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) is documenting a high humanitarian toll, widespread displacement and repeated incidents since the truce began; their situation reports stress that the truce is functionally fragile while hostilities, civilian harm and protection needs continue.
The ICRC/Red Cross and neutral intermediaries have repeatedly warned that returning the remains of hostages and recovering bodies will be extremely difficult because of rubble and destroyed sites — a practical limit on the speed of compliance with the ceasefire exchange rules. That caveat matters when one side accuses the other of “failing to return bodies.”
What this means for the question “who broke it first?”
Verification is hard.
Independent observers broadly confirm the ceasefire has been intermittently violated and that serious infractions have occurred — but they also stress access problems and the difficulty of independently verifying fast, localized claims about specific incidents. (OCHA, ICRC).
Both the pattern and independent reports cast doubt on purely reactive justifications for heavy strikes.
NGOs (Amnesty, HRW, B’Tselem) have warned that a pattern of strikes and civilian harm continued even during the pause, and they treat large escalatory attacks — especially against civilian areas or displaced-persons camps — as problematic regardless of the formal pretext. That doesn’t legally prove intent in any single incident, but it does weaken any simple “they shot first; we only responded” narrative.
Practical limits on the hostage/body exchanges matter.
The ICRC and other neutral actors have said that recovering remains in heavily-destroyed areas can be slow or impossible; where Israel claims Hamas “failed” to return bodies, independent intermediaries say the rubble and operational realities often explain delays. That complicates claims that missed returns are deliberate violations.
The consensus
There is credible, independent evidence that the ceasefire has been repeatedly strained and that Israel has continued operations that independent groups consider unlawful or disproportionate.
Amnesty, HRW and B’Tselem are all critical of Israeli conduct since the truce, OCHA documents the ongoing humanitarian crisis, and the ICRC warns recovery of remains will be slow.
Those facts make the simple, Israeli state-issued claim that “Hamas broke it first, therefore we hit back hard” not fully convincing without independent, incident-level verification.
The verdict
Given all the uncertainty:
It is not implausible that Hamas may have carried out smaller-scale violations (gunfire toward Israeli troops, sniper fire, etc.), even if the material impact was minor.
But whether those incidents legitimately triggered a massive strike killing 100+ people and involving multiple targets is highly doubtful.
The fact that Israel reasserts it is “resuming enforcement” after its strikes suggests they were not merely reactive responses, but part of an operational posture to maintain military pressure.
In practice, the ceasefire — like many others — seems to function less as a real cessation of hostilities and more as a regulated intermission, with both sides testing limits.
This Site’s reading — that Israel may be using the ceasefire to legitimize or mask ongoing operations — is consistent with what many analysts believe is the modus operandi in asymmetric conflicts of this nature.
While one cannot categorically prove Israel “broke it first,” there is abundant reason to doubt that Israel’s claims are entirely sincere or that its actions are always purely reactive. The pattern suggests Israel sees the ceasefire as a strategic instrument, not a cessation of war.
Support Vox Political!
With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.
You can help by making a donation:
https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical
Share this post:
Like this:
you might also like
If British organisations worked with the Israeli embassy to achieve that country’s aims and not our own, what should we call it?
Like this:
Here’s why people are afraid to denounce the genocidal brutality of the Israeli regime
Like this:
Israeli prime minister demands support for racist apartheid law
Like this:
Like this: