By Sardar Khan Niazi

The recent wave of violence in the Gaza Strip underscores one grim truth: a ceasefire without credible monitoring is no more than a pause before the next bloodletting. The truce between Israel and Hamas, brokered in early October was hailed as a lifeline after prolonged conflict. Yet the reports of violations that emerged soon, many attributed to Israel, show that the groundwork of that deal remains dangerously fragile. The local Gaza government claims that at least 97 Palestinians have been killed and more than 80 documented breaches by Israel have taken place since the cease-fire took effect on 10 October. Among the violations cited: air- and artillery-strikes inside the so-called “yellow line” withdrawal zone, direct fire on civilians, and obstruction of humanitarian aid. These are not mere skirmishes or misunderstandings; they suggest that Israel is treating the cease-fire as a tactical pause rather than a genuine cease in hostilities. Yet Israel and its supporters maintain a counter narrative: that such strikes are lawful acts of self-defense, prompted by alleged provocations from Hamas; and that the US does not view some recent Israeli operations as violations of the truce. This dual narrative exposes the crux of the problem: a cease-fire whose enforcement depends on the very parties with an interest in bending its rules. Without an independent monitor, every claim of violation turns into a battle of blame. For Pakistan and other states in the region, the issue is not abstract. Islamabad has strongly condemned Israeli violations of the Gaza peace agreement, calling them contrary to the spirit of the accord. That condemnation is consistent with a broader global concern: that such cease-fires, when poorly monitored, become a vehicle for further destabilization, rather than peace. The consequences of this shaky truce are all too clear: civilians in Gaza remain under fire, civilian infrastructure remains at risk, and the NGO/humanitarian corridors remain blocked or irregular. Human rights watchers, too, warn that the absence of a robust verification mechanism makes the agreement vulnerable to collapse. So what must be done if this cease-fire is to mean anything more than a hiatus in bloodshed? First, the guarantors of the agreement must insist on independent, credible monitoring and verification of cease-fire violations. Without this, each side will continue to accuse the other, and the truce will remain hostage to rhetorical and military maneuvers. Second, aid and reconstruction must be cut off from military logic: deliveries must be made on schedule, access expanded, and civilian protections genuinely upheld — otherwise the humanitarian cost will deepen and the truce will unravel. Third, the parties themselves must recognize that a cease-fire does not equal victory. For Israel, using a truce as a tactical lull betrays any notion of long-term stability. For Hamas, any violation invites a resumption of full-scale conflict. In the context of Pakistan’s media and public discourse, the Gaza issue remains deeply emotive, and rightly so. The continuing reports of Palestinian casualties even during a “cease-fire” spark anger and moral outrage. However, sympathy alone does not construct peace. What is required is consistent pressure for accountability. The international community must avoid treating the current truce as an endpoint; in fact, it must act as a beginning, a chance to build trust, not just pause hostilities. If Israel continues to violate the cease-fire while publicly committing to it, the deal loses all credibility, and with it, a fleeting opportunity for respite becomes a prelude to another phase of war. For the people of Gaza and the wider region, such duplicity is a fate worse than none. The cease-fire was meant to ease suffering, without genuine enforcement, however, it risks becoming a label for continued suffering.