Late this afternoon, Hamas announced that, for the time being, they are canceling the next scheduled release of hostages this Saturday. I am sorry to say that this development does not come as a surprise to me. I was already worried about a potential delay of last weekend’s release following the Trump show. From Hamas’s perspective, agreeing to release additional hostages, only to potentially lose power and be expelled from Gaza once the deal concludes, is illogical. Regardless of one's stance on Trump's “vision” for Gaza, revealing it before securing the hostages' safe return defies logic—if one’s true intention is to secure the release of all of the remaining hostages.
Additionally, the government has increasingly made statements implying that it will not proceed with the second part of the plan—or that, should negotiations occur, the terms would be unfeasible for Hamas to accept. In recent days, Netanyahu has once again issued public statements that seem guaranteed to derail the agreement. He continues to talk about the goal of “defeating Hamas” and then getting back the hostages. If that is indeed the strategy, it raises the question: why announce it publicly?
I am unsure of the precise timing, but Hamas’ announcement came shortly after Netanyahu’s speech in the Knesset. Netanyahu had left his trial early, claiming a need to address the Knesset, despite his infrequent participation in its sessions. During his speech, Netanyahu addressed the opposition:
You all demanded ‘a plan for the day after’—now we have a plan. The day-after plan is Trump’s. That is the plan; there will be no Hamas in Gaza because they will be gone.
Netanyahu went on to say,
We aim for absolute victory despite the opposition of the media and the opposition parties.” He then promoted the latest conspiracy theory, claiming that funding for the protests came from USAID.
Netanyahu wholeheartedly endorsed Trump’s ideas for post-war Gaza, and Trump himself declared today that Palestinians will not be permitted to return to Gaza once they are forced to leave.
It is important to mention that, according to the agreement, negotiations for the second stage were scheduled to begin early last week. However, Netanyahu refused to allow negotiators to start discussions. Instead, the Prime Minister dispatched a low-level delegation to discuss merely technical aspects of the current agreement. They returned within 24 hours.
HOSTAGES
The families of the Hostages issued the following statement:
In light of Hamas’ latest announcement, the Hostages’ Families Headquarters has urgently reached out to the mediating countries, demanding swift and effective action to restore the implementation of the deal.
We call on the Israeli government to avoid actions that could jeopardize the agreement and to work towards ensuring its continuation, securing the return of our 76 brothers and sisters.
The latest testimonies leave no room for doubt—the hostages are out of time, and all of them must be brought out of this nightmare urgently.
The Hostages’ Families Headquarters has formally contacted the government and the security coordination apparatus for clarification on the situation, in order to update and involve all the concerned families who fear for the fate of their loved ones.
The Family of Alon Ohel who is alive but in the tunnels of Gaza, asked that people come to Hostage Square Tonight its Alon’s birthday.
The future remains uncertain. However, the fact that Hamas made an announcement on Monday could be seen as a hopeful sign, as it provides some time to resolve the issue before the end of the week. Tonight, Hamas said the halt was to allow for the Israeli violations to be corrected. Only time will reveal what happens next.
Tel Aviv Diary is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The only good news is that, following the return of the three hostages this past Saturday, four families received confirmation that their loved ones are still alive.
STATE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO OCTOBER 7
Last night, the cabinet convened solely to discuss one agenda item: creation of a State Commission of Inquiry into the catastrophic failures of October 7. The meeting took place only because the High Court mandated that the government address the issue. A group representing families of fallen soldiers tried to attend the meeting, but were refused entry. There is widespread public support for a state commission, with 80% of the population in favor.
When the war began, Prime Minister Netanyahu acknowledged that there were serious questions that required answers, but insisted that “now was not the time.” Initially, many government members publicly backed the idea of forming a commission. However, as time went on, it became clear that Netanyahu completely opposed any such commission, primarily because such an inquiry would allocate blame—and he would likely be the primary individual held accountable.
From the government meeting to discuss the establishment of a State Commission of Inquiry (held solely to fulfill the protocol mandated by the Supreme Court):
Attorney General Baharav-Miara: A governmental commission of inquiry, unlike a state commission, receives its budget from the government, which may lead to improper influence—unlike a state commission, whose budget comes from the judiciary.
Finance Minister Smotrich: And who funds a state commission of inquiry? Who funds the judiciary? We will not provide a budget for a commission of inquiry that we do not approve of.
Attorney General Baharav-Miara: The Shin Bet chief requested that his written position be included, but I see that it was not distributed to the ministers. I will read parts of it.
Miki Zohar: Was the Shin Bet Chief present in meetings? Does he even know what stage we are at—whether the war is over?
Cabinet Secretary: How is he relevant? There are other officials who also requested to submit their positions.
Prime Minister Netanyahu: He [referring to the Head of the Shin Bet] is a bureaucrat—how is he relevant to this issue?
Attorney General Baharav-Miara: We presented to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague that we intend to establish a state commission of inquiry—we cannot backtrack now.
Prime Minister: Who approved this?
Attorney General Baharav-Miara: You did.
Miki Zohar: Give a legal opinion, not a political stance.
So what is actually happening? Let’s start with the fact that Netanyahu never established a commission of inquiry, of any kind, into the events surrounding October 7th. While there might be debate over the extent of Netanyahu's responsibility, the mere fact that he has been Prime Minister for most of the past 20 years places significant responsibility on him—without delving into the question of Qatari money and related matters.
To avoid the establishment of a commission, the government has created a “golem”, in the form of a fabricated narrative, claiming that the High Court cannot be trusted to appoint those who will investigate what happened. Some Likud ministers keep insisting we have to scrutinize everything, including the decisions made by the High Court—suggesting that the Supreme Court might have contributed to the events of October 7th, despite there being no decisions that could have had such an impact. However, this rhetoric thoroughly appeals to Netanyahu’s base of supporters. Especially since before the war, the judiciary was the number one target of this government.
The government’s refusal to establish a professional, serious commission of inquiry into what is the largest national tragedy and most significant series of security failures since the creation of the state is maddening. This, coupled with actions that seem designed to strain the ceasefire and sabotage the return of hostages, is beyond infuriating.
Today’s Radio Show
1×
0:00
-22:42
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Tel Aviv Diary to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.
