Gaza ceasefire slides toward low-intensity conflict as core deal remains unfinished

Israeli strikes in Gaza this week exposed a central weakness in the nearly year-old ceasefire: it has reduced the scale of fighting without resolving the political and security questions meant to move Gaza from war toward recovery. Reuters reported that Israeli strikes killed at least two Palestinians on September 28, while the Associated Press cited Gaza health officials saying more than 1,400 Palestinians have been killed since the ceasefire took effect nearly a year ago.¹²

The truce is being tested not by one decisive collapse, but by accumulated violations, casualties and stalled implementation. The ceasefire called for Gaza’s eventual reconstruction, but negotiators have not agreed on the sequencing or guarantees for Hamas disarmament, Israeli troop withdrawal and rebuilding the territory.¹ Those unresolved terms have left room for recurring Israeli strikes, allegations of Palestinian armed activity, civilian deaths and competing claims of breach.

The pattern continued on September 29, when AP reported that an Israeli strike on an apartment west of Gaza City killed two people, including a Hamas commander whom Israel said was involved in plotting attacks and recruitment.³ Hamas confirmed the commander’s death, according to AP, while Gaza hospital officials reported additional injuries.³ Reuters, in a report carried by The Straits Times, said Israel has accused Hamas of rearming and launching attacks in violation of the ceasefire, while Hamas denies trying to rebuild its arsenal and accuses Israel of undermining the deal.⁶

A ceasefire without an implemented bargain

The ceasefire’s durability depends on a bargain that remains largely unimplemented: Hamas and other armed groups would demilitarize, Israel would withdraw, transitional arrangements would take hold, and reconstruction would begin at scale. In practice, each side’s obligations have become conditional on the other’s compliance. Security incidents delay political steps, while political deadlock helps justify further force.

Reuters reported that little progress has been made on reconstruction because negotiators have failed to agree on terms for Hamas to disarm and for Israel to withdraw its troops.¹ A United Nations briefing to the Security Council on September 28 similarly said efforts to implement the Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict continued. But it noted that Hamas and other Palestinian factions had accepted a 15-point roadmap in July, while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in August that Israel did not accept it.⁴

That gap matters for humanitarian operations. Reconstruction requires predictable access, security guarantees, governance arrangements and financing. None can function normally if airstrikes, military operations and armed-group activity remain part of daily life. The UN briefing said Gaza’s humanitarian situation remained extremely grave, citing disease, overcrowded displacement sites, inadequate water and sanitation, shortages of medical supplies and fuel, and limits on the entry of critical humanitarian items.⁴

Casualties as a measure of erosion

The post-ceasefire death toll is now a key indicator of how far the truce has drifted from a recovery framework. Reuters cited Gaza health officials saying at least 1,400 Palestinians, mostly civilians, have been killed since the ceasefire took effect. The Israeli military says four Israeli soldiers have been killed.¹ AP also reported more than 1,400 Palestinian deaths since the ceasefire, saying around half were women and children, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.²

UN figures for a shorter reporting period show the same trend. The September 28 Security Council briefing said that, from June 13 to September 18, Gaza’s Health Ministry reported 360 Palestinians killed and more than 1,600 injured, including women and children.⁴ It also said at least 1,386 Palestinians had been killed since the October 2025 ceasefire went into effect, including more than 300 children and 130 women, with 4,784 injured.⁴

For diplomats and humanitarian actors, the significance is not only the cumulative number, but the absence of a functioning mechanism to turn the ceasefire into de-escalation. Israel and Hamas continue to trade blame over violations.¹ In that environment, casualty figures become both a humanitarian alarm and evidence that the ceasefire’s enforcement and sequencing mechanisms are insufficient.

The ‘yellow line’ and a divided Gaza

The UN briefing described the ceasefire as highly fragile and said Israeli military operations continued west of the so-called yellow line. It cited small-arms fire, quadcopter fire and shelling, along with daily airstrikes in densely populated areas.⁴ The yellow line has become more than a military reference point. It marks the practical division between areas where Israeli forces continue to operate and areas where civilians, aid workers and local authorities must navigate insecurity and uncertainty.

That geography complicates recovery. If parts of Gaza remain subject to clearance operations, demolition activity or repeated strikes, reconstruction cannot proceed evenly. Families may be unable to return, aid agencies may struggle to plan, and local governance bodies may be unable to restore services in militarized areas.

The UN also warned that Gaza’s population has been confined to roughly 30% of the territory, with infrastructure damage described as catastrophic and severe shortages of clean water, medical care, education, fuel, health items and shelter.⁴ That points to a ceasefire that may have reduced full-scale combat but has not restored the physical or administrative conditions needed for civilian recovery.

Disarmament, withdrawal and reconstruction are linked

The three unresolved issues at the center of the truce are mutually dependent. Israel views Hamas disarmament as necessary to prevent a return to large-scale attacks. Hamas and other Palestinian actors view Israeli withdrawal and reconstruction as evidence that the ceasefire is not becoming a permanent military arrangement. Donors and humanitarian agencies require both security and governance clarity before fully committing to rebuilding.

Reuters’ September 29 report said Israel has stepped up strikes on Hamas in recent weeks and says the group has been rearming and launching attacks in violation of the ceasefire.⁶ The same report said reconstruction remains stalled because negotiators have not agreed on Hamas disarmament and Israeli troop withdrawal.⁶ This is the central implementation trap: Israel says security conditions are not met; Palestinians and aid actors see continuing military action and restricted access as blocking normalization.

The UN briefing noted that Israel and the Board of Peace had agreed in August to establish two working groups, one on disarmament and demilitarization of Gaza and another on water, sanitation and public health.⁴ But working groups are not implementation. Until those tracks produce enforceable steps, the ceasefire is likely to remain vulnerable to recurring strikes and retaliatory claims.

Low-intensity conflict, not postwar recovery

The current trajectory is best understood as a low-intensity conflict under a ceasefire label. The threshold for formal collapse has not been crossed, but the conditions for peacebuilding have not been established. Strikes continue, casualties rise, reconstruction is delayed, and the parties remain divided over the order of security and political obligations.

For humanitarian readers, the consequence is operational: aid delivery, health response, shelter planning and winterization remain constrained by violence and uncertainty. For diplomacy readers, the lesson is that ceasefire monitoring alone is insufficient if the underlying bargain remains ambiguous. Without a credible sequence for demilitarization, withdrawal, governance and reconstruction, every incident becomes both a security event and a political veto.

The Gaza truce is therefore not failing in a single moment. It is being hollowed out incrementally — by each strike, each death, each delayed reconstruction mechanism and each unresolved dispute over who must move first.