ISRAELI STRIKES IN GAZA TEST U.S.-BACKED CEASEFIRE

Developing story: Israel’s military said it was looking into the reported strikes, and casualty figures may be updated.

Two Israeli airstrikes in the Gaza Strip on Sunday killed at least two people, including a four-year-old boy, Palestinian health officials said, highlighting the fragility of the U.S.-backed ceasefire and the difficulty of moving toward a wider stabilization plan. Reuters reported that one strike hit a building in Zawayda in central Gaza after residents said the Israeli army warned property owners to leave. Medics said debris and shrapnel wounded at least six people, including Mohammad Abdel-Salam Taha, who later died at a hospital.

A second strike hit the nearby Nuseirat refugee camp, according to Palestinian health officials. The Israeli military told Reuters it was looking into both strikes. Israel has said recent attacks target Hamas and other militants it accuses of trying to rebuild capabilities under cover of the ceasefire. Hamas says Israel is violating the truce and undermining the broader U.S. plan. The competing accounts reflect a core weakness of the ceasefire: it stopped the highest-intensity combat but did not create an agreed mechanism that prevents or adjudicates every strike.

The October 2025 ceasefire was intended to create space for hostage arrangements, aid delivery, governance planning and an eventual international security presence. It did not end the underlying conflict over Hamas’ military role, Israeli security control or Palestinian political authority. As a result, Israel continues to reserve the right to strike what it describes as militant threats, while Palestinians in Gaza remain exposed to sudden attacks in densely populated areas. Each casualty, especially the death of a child, deepens public anger and makes political compromise more difficult.

The strikes come as military officials from Uganda and Burundi have discussed possible participation in an International Stabilization Force envisioned under President Donald Trump’s ceasefire plan. That proposed force would monitor the ceasefire, secure aid delivery and help train Palestinian police in zones administered by a technocratic committee. Yet a force designed to stabilize Gaza would have to operate in the same environment where Israeli strikes still occur and where Hamas’ disarmament remains unresolved. The events in Zawayda and Nuseirat illustrate why troop contributors will seek clear rules before deployment.

For Israel, the ceasefire presents a security dilemma. Officials do not want Hamas to rebuild tunnels, command networks, rocket capacity or local control. Israeli leaders therefore argue that targeted strikes are necessary even after the truce. But military action in crowded civilian areas carries high humanitarian and diplomatic costs. Warnings to evacuate may reduce casualties in some cases, but they do not eliminate the risk of injury and death from blast effects, debris and shrapnel. When civilians are killed, Israel faces renewed scrutiny from mediators and governments supporting the ceasefire framework.

For Palestinians, the strikes reinforce the perception that the ceasefire has not provided real safety. Gaza’s population has endured prolonged war, displacement, damaged infrastructure and restricted access to basic services. The difference between full-scale war and intermittent strikes is meaningful, but it may not be enough to restore normal life or public confidence. A family’s loss in central Gaza becomes part of a broader narrative that civilians remain vulnerable regardless of diplomatic announcements. That perception can undermine cooperation with stabilization or governance plans associated with Israel or the United States.

The humanitarian implications go beyond immediate casualties. Airstrikes can damage already fragile buildings, disrupt aid operations and discourage returns to certain areas. Hospitals remain strained by the cumulative effects of war, shortages and infrastructure damage. Even small numbers of casualties can burden medical services and traumatized communities. If strikes continue, aid agencies may struggle to plan distribution routes or reconstruction work. A stabilization force, if deployed, would need to coordinate humanitarian access while avoiding becoming entangled in Israeli military operations or militant activity.

The diplomatic risk is that violence on the ground outpaces political planning. The Trump administration has promoted a ceasefire and stabilization framework, but implementation depends on commitments from Israel, Palestinian actors and troop-contributing countries. Uganda and Morocco have offered or discussed personnel, while Burundi and others are considering roles. Those efforts could stall if the ceasefire appears too unstable to protect foreign troops or civilians. Conversely, continued strikes may increase pressure to deploy a monitoring force sooner, even before the political foundations are fully settled.

The dispute over disarmament remains central. Israel says it will not withdraw from territory it controls until Hamas is fully disarmed. Hamas has resisted conditions that would strip it of military power without a broader political settlement. Palestinian civilians are caught between those positions. A technocratic committee and international force may help manage services and security, but neither can solve the core question by administrative means alone. Until there is a binding arrangement on armed groups, Israeli operations and Palestinian governance, ceasefire violations or contested strikes are likely to continue.

The deaths reported Sunday do not by themselves collapse the ceasefire, but they show its limits. The truce has reduced the scale of war while leaving unresolved the authority to use force, the protection of civilians and the route to political settlement. The next test is whether mediators can respond to incidents with accountability mechanisms strong enough to preserve confidence. Without that, each strike risks turning the ceasefire into a pause in major combat rather than a pathway out of conflict. Fact-check date: August 24, 2026. Article type: News. Sources: Reuters; Associated Press. Developing note: Israel’s military said it was looking into the reported strikes, and casualty figures may be updated.