Israel has violated the ceasefire in Gaza hundreds of times since October, using vague or unverified justifications to carry out strike in a recurring pattern of escalation and impunity.

From the moment the ceasefire in Gaza was announced on 10 October, 2025, the situation at first seemed like a long-awaited relief. A complete halt to military operations, a flow of aid, the exchange of prisoners and bodies, and a partial Israeli withdrawal. The agreement was sponsored by the United States under President Donald Trump’s administration, with Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey participating in its design. The scene appeared to be a serious political step to catch a breath, especially after two years of continuous devastation that exhausted the Palestinians.

However, as soon as the details on the ground were examined, it became clear that the ceasefire had practically turned into a written text ignored by the stronger party. Within just 40 days, at least 393 to 400 Israeli violations were recorded, according to the Ministry of Health in Gaza and the government media office.

Violations ranged from airstrikes, artillery shelling, direct fire, house demolitions, and obstruction of aid. The result: about 300 deaths and over 650 injuries since the moment when the bloodshed was supposed to stop.

These figures are not just statistics; they are key to understanding a consistent and repeated pattern: Israeli violations are justified each time by the same excuses, while the Palestinian side denies any involvement and documents completely different field realities.

In this investigation, we track the most prominent violations, analyse Israeli behaviour and justification patterns, and reach a clear conclusion: the occupation systematically violates the agreement, using repeated justifications in different forms but with the same content.

First: timeline of violations from the first hours to the end of November

Before analysing, it is important to review the main events that shaped the turning points in what can be called a “slow war.” Despite differences in timing and declared motives, one thread connects them all: a small incident is announced, followed by a large-scale response that does not match the size of the event.

14-15 October, 2025: early violation and warning

Less than five days after the ceasefire began, the Israeli army shelled areas in northern Gaza as civilians were returning to their homes. The strike killed more than seven people and injured dozens.

The Israeli justification was ready: “Civilians entered a restricted area” and “forces were threatened.”

However, Palestinian authorities denied any military activity, confirming that the area was open for return under the agreement.

This incident was a test: would the Israeli army be held accountable for an early violation? The answer came quickly: no accountability, no international pressure, not even a clarifying statement.

19 October, 2025: wide shelling justified by the death of two Israeli soldiers

On this day, Israel announced that its forces were fired upon near Rafah and that two soldiers were killed. Despite later conflicting accounts regarding the nature of the incident, the Israeli response was broad and disproportionate: airstrikes on Rafah and its surroundings, killing 26–44 people and wounding dozens.

Notably, Israel stopped obstructing aid the following day and claimed it remained committed to the agreement. This marked the first cycle of a pattern that would repeat: justification → intensive shelling → formal return to commitment → new violation.

28-29 October, 2025: the most dangerous escalation

Over just two days, the Strip experienced some of the fiercest attacks since the agreement. The airstrikes targeted over 30 locations according to estimates and killed 104 people, including 46 children.

This time the Israeli justification was complex: “Fire on a soldier” and “delivery of a fake body for a hostage.” Hamas denied both claims, calling them “an excuse to destroy what Israel could not destroy in open war.”

International outrage lasted only a few hours before discussions resumed about “calm” and “continuing the agreement.”

November: daily shelling and absence of international pressure

During the first three weeks of November, the Strip faced nearly daily attacks: artillery shelling, limited airstrikes, direct fire on civilians in Khan Yunis, Beit Lahia, and other areas. On many days, the death toll ranged between 10 and 25.

Once again, the justification was always present: “fire on forces,” “security threat,” “terrorist activity.”

19 November, 2025: latest documented escalations

Airstrikes targeted Khan Yunis and Beit Lahia, killing 22–25 people. The Israeli army claimed “snipers” targeted its forces. Palestinian sources confirmed that there were no clashes in the area.

Second: analysis of the overall pattern – repeated violations using the same mechanism

After tracking the incidents, the overall picture becomes clearer than any official explanation. Despite temporal spacing and multiple locations, the violations follow a single pattern based on three main stages:

1. The incident usually begins with an Israeli report of fire or a supposed threat. Often no evidence or recordings are provided, and no independent investigation is allowed. However, the report alone permits the Israeli army to launch extensive military operations that far exceed the size of the incident.

2. These disproportionate military responses then affect civilians and property, resulting in a large number of deaths and injuries, making field estimates very different from the official Israeli narrative.

3. After each escalation, Israel issues a statement declaring commitment to the agreement, while the army violates the agreement again within days under a new pretext, repeating the cycle almost daily and turning the ceasefire into a fragile arrangement that does not protect civilians on the ground.

Third: refuting Israel’s repeated justifications

The pattern Israel uses to justify its attacks relies on a set of general and repeated excuses, all of which collapse when examining the real context. The first excuse is “our forces came under fire.” This phrase is often used to justify large operations, but documented evidence or independent investigations are almost nonexistent. In many cases, fire is limited or entirely absent, sometimes reported in areas without any Israeli forces, making the military response disproportionate and exaggerated.

The second frequently repeated justification is “security threat.” This vague explanation allows any Palestinian movement to be portrayed as a potential danger. Civilians returning to their homes or simple vehicle movements near agricultural areas may be considered a threat, and this ambiguity is exploited to carry out unjustified strikes. Despite frequent use, this security justification lacks clear legal or field basis and often serves as cover for escalation.

The phrase “restricted areas” is also used to justify attacks, although the agreement did not specify precise maps. This one-sided interpretation gives Israel the power to escalate as it wishes, targeting populated civilian areas under vague claims. Similarly, the term “legitimate response” frequently appears in official statements. Ironically, international law requires a real threat and proportionality to verify the legitimacy of military response. In reality, all documented violations lacked these conditions, as the response was wholly disproportionate and no independent investigation confirmed Israeli claims.

Fourth: the role of the United States in supporting violations

Although Washington played the main role in sponsoring the agreement, the political and media coverage supporting the legal and procedural basis of the ceasefire did not translate into actual monitoring on the ground. With each violation, statements were repeated that Israel has the “right to defend itself” and that attacks are a “legitimate response,” while the Palestinian side is described as the “aggressor.” This unconditional support makes it difficult for any international body to enforce real accountability, allowing violations to continue without diplomatic consequences.

Conclusion: The policy of repeated violations

By monitoring violations and analysing motives, it can be said that the continuation of violations stems from the absence of international pressure, exploitation of legal ambiguity in the agreement, and the use of violations as a tool to manage the conflict, keeping the Strip under constant pressure. Each small incident becomes an excuse to reinforce military control, while the original threat is usually limited or nonexistent. These violations do not occur by chance but represent a systematic policy to impose new rules of engagement that place any Palestinian movement under direct threat.

Monitoring the ceasefire violations since its implementation shows that Israel repeatedly and systematically violates the agreement. Each violation begins with a minor justification, then escalates into wide military operations, followed by official statements claiming compliance, and the cycle repeats with every new incident. The pattern is clear, and so is the result: the official ceasefire exists on paper, while reality on the ground reflects ongoing attacks and civilian casualties. The ceasefire thus provides no real protection and becomes a formal agreement exploited for Israel’s military interests without real accountability or international pressure ensuring compliance.

Republished from The Resistant Palestinian Pens, November 20 2025.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.

Please donate to Pearls and Irritations

Help us to continue to support young writers who bring a fresh perspective to stories impacting the next generation not covered in Australia’s mainstream media.

Make your donation via the Australian Cultural Fund today.