“Ceasefire” in Gaza? A façade while occupation and strikes persist

On 10 October 2025 a ceasefire took effect between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, brokered with strong backing from Donald Trump. The truce was hailed as a relief for Gaza’s beleaguered civilian population.

Yet within days, Gaza’s media office claimed that Israel had already violated the deal 47 times, resulting in the deaths of more than 125 Palestinians and injuries to 143 more. These violations included direct gunfire against civilians, shelling, arrests — precisely what a ceasefire is supposed to halt.

What this highlights is not simply a lapse, but a predictable pattern: Israel signs a ceasefire while reserving the “right” to strike at will — thus turning the truce into a thin veneer of peace, rather than real protection for Palestinians.

Consequences for Gaza and wider regional fault-lines

The consequences for Gaza’s civilians are brutal: heavy air-and-ground operations resume under the pretext of “enforcing” or “responding” to alleged violations. For example, Israeli forces conducted massive strikes killing over 125 Palestinians, including children and women, even as the ceasefire was claimed to be active.

On the Lebanese front, the pattern is identical. Even under a ceasefire with Hezbollah since November 2024, Israel has carried out near-daily strikes in southern Lebanon, “almost a year later” according to AP. The Lebanese case offers a blueprint: a “less-fire” rather than a cease­-fire, allowing Israel to maintain strikes without full-scale war.

Thus Palestinians in Gaza should recognise that the current truce may also be a mirage: the stronger party retains military advantage and uses the ceasefire as diplomatic cover, not as a real commitment to respect human life and international law.

Israel and the US: trust broken, leverage abused

Donald Trump may have championed the Gaza truce, but his posture is revealing: when Israeli soldiers were reportedly killed in Rafah, Trump publicly declared that Israel “should hit back” — effectively green-lighting further Israeli strikes under the truce.

When the guarantor of the deal gives permission for one side to resume large-scale violence, the notion of a ceasefire becomes hollow. The US-Israel axis once again demonstrates it cannot be trusted to protect Palestinian lives. Israel’s history of violating ceasefires both in Gaza and Lebanon (many times over) is well-documented.

Why this matters now

• The civilian population of Gaza remains vulnerable — a truce that fails to stop strikes is simply a pause before a new escalation.

• The use of the Lebanon model suggests Israel will continue to strike while maintaining a nominal ceasefire — Gaza’s situation could replicate that pattern.

• Palestinians and their supporters must view the current deal with skepticism: until Israel honours the terms (cessation of strikes, withdrawal, lifting of blockades) the truce is not a step toward peace but a continuation of occupation under different conditions.

• The United States’ role as mediator is compromised: support for Israel’s right to strike undercuts any impartiality and leaves Palestinians at the mercy of Israel’s military calculus.

In conclusion

The ceasefire announced in early October cannot be seen as a genuine protection for Palestinians in Gaza until it is respected by the stronger party — Israel — and enforced by the guarantor — the United States. As history in Lebanon shows, Israel signs agreements then acts unilaterally under the guise of self-defence, while Palestinians pay the human cost. The current truce threatens to become another such episode.

Israel’s actions show that the truce is not a road to justice, but a tactical pause. Palestinians need genuine guarantees, accountability, and real withdrawal of forces — none of which appear forthcoming. Israel and the US cannot be counted on as honourable arbiters when their own interests and military logic dominate the field.