Does 'ceasefire' still hold any real meaning?

The term "ceasefire" appears to be losing its conventional meaning in contemporary conflicts, with the situation in Gaza serving as a stark example. Traditionally viewed as an intermediate phase between war and peace, a ceasefire implies a pause in hostilities intended to facilitate peace talks. However, recent developments suggest this definition is no longer applicable in practice.

In Gaza, since a ceasefire was established in October 2025, approximately 980 Palestinians have been killed by June 2026. While this represents a significant decrease from the intense fighting periods prior, it is a far cry from the cessation of hostilities typically associated with a ceasefire. Data from reputable journals indicates a substantial underreporting of casualties, suggesting the actual toll could be much higher, potentially reaching 100,000 deaths over two years of conflict.

“

We are seeing an incredibly dangerous development.

The article questions why neither party declares the ceasefire over, despite the ongoing violence. Two plausible explanations are offered: firstly, the immense moral and political cost of being perceived as the party that restarts the conflict deters such declarations. Even when actions clearly violate the terms, the opposing side may hesitate to formally end the ceasefire to avoid blame.

Secondly, even a reduced level of violence under a "false ceasefire" is still a decrease compared to full-scale war. For weaker parties like Hamas, a ceasefire, however flawed, becomes a survival strategy, as the cost of resuming full conflict is deemed far greater. This dynamic leaves civilians in an untenable situation, living under a humanitarian catastrophe with constant danger, while the territory they occupy shrinks daily due to Israeli military movements.

“

The cost of a false ceasefire is high, but the cost of a full war is far higher.