On December 19, 2025, displaced families in Gaza City gathered in a classroom in the Tuffah neighbourhood to celebrate a wedding. The Gaza Martyrs School had been converted into a shelter for civilians fleeing Israel’s assault. At least six people – including a five‑month‑old baby – were killed when Israeli tanks fired shells into the second floor. Witnesses reported that an Israeli tank advanced into the courtyard, fired several rounds at the floor where the celebration was taking place, and then blocked ambulances and civil defence teams from reaching the scene for more than two hours. By the time aid workers were allowed in, the joyous gathering had become a massacre.
This was not an errant projectile. The Israeli army confirmed it was responsible for the strike. In a post on social media, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) claimed the shells were aimed at militants and that seven fighters were killed. Local health officials and eyewitnesses, however, identified the dead as civilians. Parents carried the remains of their children out of the rubble while charred wedding decorations fluttered in the breeze. Even if the military’s account were true, the decision to use high‑explosive ordnance against a known shelter hosting a wedding – during a declared ceasefire – reveals a callous disregard for civilian life and for the very idea of a truce.
The wedding attack was not an isolated episode. According to the Government Media Office in Gaza, Israel has violated the Gaza ceasefire at least 738 times between October 10 and December 12. These violations include 205 instances of Israeli forces shooting at civilians, 358 air and artillery bombings, 37 raids beyond the “yellow line” boundary, and 138 demolitions of civilian property. Al Jazeera’s analysis shows that Israel has attacked Gaza on 62 out of the 73 days of the ceasefire, leaving only 11 days free of lethal violence. Since the ceasefire began, Israeli attacks have killed at least 401 Palestinians and injured 1,108 others. The wedding massacre is thus a continuation of daily violations rather than a rare breach.
A “ceasefire” that isn’t
Ceasefires are supposed to suspend hostilities, allow civilians to breathe, and create space for diplomacy. In Gaza, the ceasefire that started on October 10, 2025, was part of a 20‑point plan brokered by the United States. It called for an end to all military operations, the lifting of Israel’s blockade on humanitarian aid, the release of captives on both sides, and the withdrawal of Israeli forces behind a “yellow line.” Yet the plan lacked enforcement mechanisms and, crucially, was signed by mediators rather than by the belligerents themselves. Israel determined the location of the “yellow line” unilaterally, placing roughly half of Gaza under continued Israeli occupation. The line is often invisible; civilians crossing it to fetch food or check on their homes have been shot dead.
Without clear rules or a joint monitoring body, the ceasefire has functioned as little more than a pause for Israel to reposition its troops. Israel continues to block aid and maintain military control over much of the strip. The Palestinian Ministry of Health reports that at least 401 Palestinians have been killed and 1,108 injured since the truce went into effect. Despite attacks occurring on 62 of the first 73 days of the agreement, US officials continue to describe the situation as a “ceasefire.”
Beyond Gaza, Israel has shown the same pattern along its border with Lebanon. In late 2024 it agreed to a ceasefire with Hezbollah, yet UN peacekeepers have documented more than 7,500 Israeli airspace violations and nearly 2,500 ground violations. Lebanese authorities say 331 people have been killed and 945 injured during this period, while UN investigators recorded only four projectiles fired by Lebanese groups, none causing casualties. Such one‑sided enforcement turns the ceasefire into another instrument of Israeli dominance.
What makes a ceasefire credible?
Comparative peace processes show that successful ceasefires have four essential features: precise rules, joint monitoring, accountability mechanisms, and genuine consent from all parties. The Gaza plan contains none of these. In conflicts such as Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Tajikistan, and South Sudan, joint commissions have been established to supervise implementation, monitor adherence, investigate alleged violations, revise operational details, and resolve disputes. The 2005 Sudan ceasefire, for example, created a Ceasefire Political Commission comprising senior political and military officials from each party and a United Nations representative. The Gaza ceasefire, by contrast, lacks even a weak version of such a joint commission, meaning there is no authoritative body to adjudicate allegations of violations.
Without monitoring and accountability, ceasefires quickly erode into unilateral truces. The Government Media Office in Gaza has recorded nearly 600 Israeli violations, at least 356 Palestinian deaths, and more than 900 injuries between October 10 and December 2. The Israeli army claims Hamas violated the ceasefire 18 times in the same period. No neutral body exists to verify either side’s claims. In this vacuum, the stronger party’s narrative prevails by default, and there is no institutional path for victims to seek redress. The result is a ceasefire in name only.
Good‑faith ceasefires elsewhere demonstrate how far the Gaza arrangement falls short. In Northern Ireland, armed groups announced a ceasefire in 1997 and, apart from a few isolated bombings in 1998, largely held their fire. No ceasefire violations were reported in 1999, 2001, 2002, or 2003. This success rested on detailed terms, an independent monitoring body, and a willingness to address underlying grievances. In Sudan, Tajikistan, and South Sudan, ceasefire agreements created joint commissions and oversight committees to monitor compliance. By contrast, the Gaza plan’s skeletal framework allows Israel to define permissible actions unilaterally.
A pattern of impunity
Israel’s disregard for ceasefire obligations is part of a broader pattern of impunity enabled by its allies. UNIFIL’s documentation of thousands of Israeli violations in Lebanon has been met with diplomatic shrugs. Western governments continue to supply weapons and political cover even as Israel blocks aid convoys and destroys reconstruction efforts. Ceasefires are meant to save lives and open the door to negotiations, but when one party can violate them without consequence, the agreements lose credibility. Comparative experience shows that when parties have clear rules, joint monitoring, and genuine intent to negotiate, as in Northern Ireland and Sudan, ceasefires can hold.
The misuse of ceasefire language is not accidental. War fosters sprawling bureaucracies, entrenched militaries, and lucrative weapons contracts; each new “pause” becomes an excuse for more spending and more surveillance. Powerful states redefine temporary truces as acts of charity while continuing to bomb and occupy. When a permanent war economy invests language itself with propaganda, there is little incentive to accept genuine restraint. This is why opponents of endless wars argue that the only meaningful ceasefire is one that both sides can trust and that reduces the reach of state violence rather than expanding it.
Redefining words to suit war
Israel’s record suggests that “ceasefire” has been stripped of its original meaning. By continuing to bomb shelters and starve civilians while insisting the truce is intact, Israeli officials have redefined a ceasefire as the absence of large‑scale Hamas attacks. Such one‑sided truces teach the weaker side that agreements are meaningless and make future deals harder to achieve. When powerful states use peace agreements as fig leaves for ongoing violence, they degrade the language of diplomacy and reward aggression.
If Israel’s definition of ceasefire is allowed to stand, the word will lose all meaning. A genuine truce requires both sides to halt offensive operations and submit to independent monitoring. It requires humanitarian access, clear rules, and a commitment to negotiate a political solution. The killing of wedding guests in Gaza is a tragedy and a test. If mediators continue to excuse Israeli violations, they will confirm that some states and their allies are permitted perpetual war. If, instead, they enforce the ceasefire and demand accountability, then the word might regain its meaning and open a path to peace.
