In a move emblematic of its erratic approach to ceasefire enforcement, the Israeli army announced Wednesday morning a formal return to the ceasefire in Gaza—mere hours after unleashing a wave of airstrikes and artillery fire across the besieged enclave.
The announcement followed a night of intense bombardment that left at least 100 Palestinians dead, including 24 children, and dozens more wounded, in 12 hours.
The military claimed its actions were in response to alleged violations by Hamas, stating that “based on political directives, and following a series of major strikes targeting dozens of sites, the army is now reinforcing the agreement after it was breached by Hamas.”
The statement further claimed that more than 30 resistance fighters were targeted and warned of “forceful retaliation” against any future infractions.
Yet critics argue that Israel’s invocation of ceasefire violations is often based on unverified or vague allegations, used to justify preemptive or retaliatory strikes that undermine the very premise of a truce.
The pattern—ceasefire declared, then suspended, then reinstated—has become a hallmark of Israel’s military conduct in Gaza, raising fundamental questions about its commitment to international mediation efforts and civilian protection.
According to reports from Al-Jazeera and USA Today, the Israeli government has repeatedly accused Hamas of violating the ceasefire, including claims about attacks in Rafah and delays in returning hostage remains.
However, Hamas has denied involvement in these incidents, citing lack of access to certain areas and the need for excavation equipment to recover bodies buried under rubble.
Meanwhile, humanitarian conditions in Gaza continue to deteriorate. The latest strikes targeted displacement tents and civilian homes, compounding the suffering of families already uprooted by previous assaults.
The ceasefire, brokered with international support and intended to facilitate aid and recovery, appears to be treated by Israel as a strategic lever; activated or suspended at will, rather than upheld as a binding obligation.
This approach not only erodes trust in diplomatic mechanisms but also exposes civilians to renewed cycles of violence under the guise of “security responses,” makes this ceasefire less about halting the bombing and attacks and more about pacing its offensives.
