Video Shows Israel Have Already Started to Occupy Gaza City, Despite "Ultimatum" Shared By Western Press
Israel has presented its latest threat to Gaza City as an ultimatum: surrender or face destruction. Yet the decision to attack was made weeks ago, rendering the supposed condition meaningless. The framing obscures a pre-approved plan of collective punishment that should carry grave legal consequences.
On August 7 and 8, Israel’s political-security cabinet approved a plan to seize Gaza City. This was a concrete authorization for the military to proceed. Reuters and other outlets reported the approval, noting that it involved the mobilization of tens of thousands of reservists and preparation for a large-scale ground incursion.
By August 20, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed that the first steps of the Gaza City operation had already begun. He emphasized that any negotiations for a ceasefire or hostage return would proceed only “on terms acceptable to Israel.” In practice, this meant the offensive was already locked in, regardless of Hamas’s response.
Update: As of August 23, Israeli armor was filmed advancing in Gaza City’s Sabra district, underscoring that the ground phase was already in motion regardless of any ultimatum. Al Jazeera showed footage of Israeli tanks in Sabra.
On August 22, Defense Minister Israel Katz announced that Gaza City could be destroyed unless Hamas surrendered and released hostages. Media outlets quickly picked up his remarks, framing them as a conditional threat, as though Hamas still had the ability to stop the destruction by agreeing to Israel’s demands. As of August 23, Israel has not presented a counterproposal; Netanyahu has said talks would resume only “on terms acceptable to Israel,” but those terms, and the ultimatum associated with them, don’t exist yet.
This is the core falsehood. The plan to destroy Gaza City had already been authorized and initiated weeks earlier. The so-called ultimatum was nothing more than political theater, designed to frame an inevitable assault as a reluctant last resort.
The Associated Press, The Times (UK), and other major outlets ran Katz’s statement as though it was genuine. Headlines declared that Gaza City “could be destroyed” if Hamas did not surrender, with no reference to the prior cabinet decision. Readers were left with the impression that Israel was reluctantly considering escalation, not that it had already set the course.
Reuters repeatedly reminded audiences that the Gaza City takeover had been approved and was already underway. Their coverage contrasted sharply with the rest of the international press, which largely reproduced the official Israeli narrative without scrutiny.
This pattern is deeply problematic. When the media repeats official ultimatums without context, it launders propaganda into public record. Israel’s threat was not new. It was not contingent. It was public relations, and much of the press treated it as fact.
Under international law, the forcible transfer of a civilian population is a war crime and, when systematic, a crime against humanity. The International Commission of Jurists has already warned that Israel’s Gaza City plan “inexorably” entails forcible transfer. The aim is not simply to seize territory but to displace the civilian population so Israel can claim it is not “occupying” them. This legal sleight of hand is transparent: expelling civilians does not erase obligations under occupation law; it compounds the violations.
Israel has attempted to frame evacuation deadlines for Gaza City’s hundreds of thousands of residents as humanitarian measures. In reality, ordering civilians to leave under threat of destruction is forced displacement by definition. The fact that Israeli officials have openly linked evacuation to their legal strategy only strengthens the case that crimes against humanity are being committed in full view.
The UN Security Council convened an emergency session on August 10 to warn that the Gaza City plan risked “another horrific chapter” of mass death and displacement. Human rights groups have demanded immediate intervention to prevent what they describe as ethnic cleansing. Yet despite the warnings, Israel has faced little meaningful international pressure. The United States, in particular, has avoided direct criticism, instead urging caution while continuing to provide military support.
The silence of many Western governments has been mirrored by the silence of much of the mainstream press. The failure to challenge Israel’s framing has helped create a perception that its actions are still conditional, still avoidable, when in fact the opposite is true.
Language is not neutral. By repeating the ultimatum as if it were a real choice, the press allows Israel to shift responsibility. The destruction of Gaza City becomes Hamas’s fault, because Hamas “refused to surrender.” This is precisely the narrative Israel seeks to create: a transfer of blame for crimes that were already planned and approved by its own cabinet.
The reality is stark. Gaza City’s fate was sealed before Katz issued his ultimatum. Hamas’s choices, real or imagined, are irrelevant to the decision Israel already made. The ultimatum is theater, designed to mask the truth: that what is unfolding is not conditional warfare but a premeditated act of destruction.
Israel’s ultimatum to Hamas over Gaza City is not an ultimatum at all. It is a cover story. The destruction of Gaza City was authorized weeks earlier and is already underway. By presenting this as conditional, the media is complicit in spreading a falsehood that shields Israel from accountability.
There is no choice being offered. There is no last resort. There is only a pre-approved plan of collective punishment, dressed up as diplomacy, and broadcast to the world as though it were truth.