Title:
Escalation Amid Ceasefire: Israeli Strikes in Gaza Kill Civilians as U.S. Pushes for Phase Two of Truce Agreement
Abstract
This paper examines the recent escalation of violence in the Gaza Strip on January 25, 2026, during a fragile ceasefire arrangement, in which Israeli drone and artillery fire killed two Palestinians in Tuffah and wounded four others in Gaza City. These incidents occurred amid ongoing U.S. diplomatic efforts to advance Phase Two of a tripartite ceasefire agreement brokered in October 2025, involving Israel, Hamas, and the United States. Drawing on official reports, health ministry data, and eyewitness accounts, this study analyzes the operational, political, and humanitarian dimensions of the violence, with particular emphasis on the erosion of trust in the ceasefire mechanism and the increasing civilian toll. It also evaluates the role of U.S. envoys in mediating a path forward, while critically assessing the viability of peacebuilding initiatives amid persistent asymmetries in power and accountability. The paper concludes with policy recommendations aimed at reinforcing ceasefire compliance and addressing humanitarian imperatives.
- Introduction
On January 25, 2026, Israeli military actions in the northern Gaza Strip resulted in the deaths of two Palestinians in the Tuffah neighborhood and injuries to four civilians from a drone strike in Gaza City. These events unfolded as the United States intensified its diplomatic pressure on both Israel and Hamas to implement the second phase of a ceasefire agreement established in October 2025. Despite the formal truce, recurrent violence has undermined the credibility of the agreement and reignited concerns over the protection of civilians in war-torn Gaza.
Since October 7, 2023, when Hamas launched an unprecedented cross-border assault on southern Israel—killing approximately 1,200 people and taking over 250 hostages—Israel has conducted a sustained military campaign across the Gaza Strip. The conflict, described by international bodies as one of the deadliest in the 21st century relative to population size, has resulted in over 71,000 Palestinian deaths according to the Gaza Ministry of Health, with the majority identified as women and children.
Despite a ceasefire declaration in October 2025, hostilities have continued at a lower intensity, with reports of nearly 480 Palestinian deaths attributed to Israeli fire since that date. This paper investigates the January 2026 strikes not in isolation, but as symptomatic of deeper structural and geopolitical challenges in the post-ceasefire phase.
- Context: The October 2025 Ceasefire Agreement
The ceasefire agreement, brokered primarily by U.S. Special Envoys and supported by Egypt and Qatar, was hailed as a breakthrough following 25 months of incessant conflict. Key provisions included:
A cessation of offensive operations by both Israel and Hamas.
The release of remaining hostages held by Hamas in exchange for Palestinian prisoners detained by Israel.
A phased withdrawal of Israeli forces from densely populated areas of Gaza.
The establishment of an international monitoring mechanism.
Humanitarian aid corridors to be reinstated.
The agreement was divided into three phases. Phase One focused on immediate cessation of hostilities and humanitarian relief. Phase Two, initiated in early January 2026, required Israel to deepen troop withdrawals from central and northern Gaza, including from Khan Younis and Tuffah, while Hamas was expected to begin disarming and ceding administrative control of Gaza to a technocratic Palestinian Authority (PA) transitional government.
However, implementation has been fraught with delays and mutual accusations of violations. Israel has cited continued rocket fire and tunnel reactivation by Hamas, while Palestinian officials accuse Israel of using “security justifications” to prolong military presence and target civilians under the guise of counterterrorism.
- Incident Analysis: January 25, 2026 Attacks
3.1. Tuffah Neighborhood Strike
At approximately 8:45 a.m. local time on January 25, Israeli artillery or aerial fire struck a residential compound in the Tuffah neighborhood, a densely populated area in northern Gaza with a history of militant activity. Local health authorities confirmed two fatalities—identified as Mahmoud Nasser (38) and his 14-year-old daughter Layla—and no militant presence at the site.
Residents reported that there had been no prior evacuation warnings, and rescue teams faced impediments due to destroyed infrastructure and damaged roads. The strike occurred just days after Israeli forces formally withdrew from the area under Phase Two agreements, raising questions about the permanence of military withdrawal.
3.2. Gaza City Drone Strike
In a separate incident at 4:17 p.m., an Israeli drone explosion detonated on the rooftop of a multi-unit apartment building in central Gaza City. The blast caused debris to rain onto a crowded street below, injuring four civilians, including two women and a child. Medical personnel from Al-Shifa Hospital reported shrapnel injuries and one fatality risk due to delayed evacuation caused by fuel shortages and damaged ambulances.
Eyewitnesses told Reuters that the building housed no known militant infrastructure and previously accommodated displaced families from Rafah. Notably, Israel has not issued a statement clarifying the target or acknowledging the incident, consistent with its policy of operational opacity during ceasefire periods.
3.3. Pattern of Civilian Targeting and Accountability Gaps
Both incidents are consistent with a broader pattern identified by human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and B’Tselem: the use of disproportionate firepower in civilian zones under the justification of preemptive self-defense. The absence of official Israeli military commentary—common in Gaza operations—exacerbates accountability deficits and undermines confidence in international law compliance.
Furthermore, the timing of the strikes, coinciding with U.S. diplomatic engagement, suggests a strategic ambiguity in Israel’s enforcement of the ceasefire. Scholars such as Dugard (2025) argue that such actions may serve as coercive signals to Hamas, intended to extract further concessions under the guise of security necessity.
- U.S. Diplomatic Engagement and the “New Gaza” Initiative
U.S. pressure to advance the ceasefire process intensified in January 2026. On January 24, President Donald Trump’s special envoys—Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner—met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem to discuss the implementation of Phase Two. This meeting followed Trump’s controversial “New Gaza” initiative, a postwar reconstruction plan emphasizing private-sector investment, digital infrastructure, and real estate development in a demilitarized Gaza.
While the U.S. frames this plan as a pathway to economic normalization and peace, critics, including UNRWA officials and Palestinian civil society leaders, have condemned it as a “neoliberal colonization” effort that sidesteps issues of sovereignty, refugee rights, and accountability (Rajab, 2026). The plan’s emphasis on luxury real estate and foreign investment, reportedly intended to attract Gulf capital, raises concerns about the displacement of returning refugees and the commodification of reconstruction.
Moreover, the U.S. has sought to downplay Israel’s continued military actions, framing them as “isolated incidents” necessary for force protection. This diplomatic leniency risks normalizing violations of ceasefire terms and eroding international norms on civilian protection.
- Humanitarian and Social Consequences
As of January 2026, over 85% of Gaza’s population—approximately 1.9 million people—remains internally displaced. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that only 18 of 36 hospitals are partially functional, and access to clean water and electricity remains severely limited.
The January 25 attacks further destabilized community trust in the ceasefire. In Khan Younis, over a hundred mourners attended the funeral of a man killed by drone fire the previous day. At the morgue of Nasser Hospital, relative Fares Erheimat declared: “They are liars, there is no ceasefire.” This sentiment, echoed widely on social media, reflects a deep disillusionment with diplomatic processes perceived as disconnected from ground realities.
Mental health experts in Gaza report a surge in trauma-related disorders, with children exhibiting symptoms of post-traumatic stress at record levels (Al-Masri, 2026). The repeated cycle of violence and false promises of peace contributes to what psychiatrist Samah Jabr terms “structural hopelessness.”
- Political Reactions and International Response
Hamas: Denounced the strikes as “deliberate sabotage” of the ceasefire and warned of potential retaliation if Israeli forces do not fully withdraw.
Palestinian Authority (PA): Called for the immediate activation of the international monitoring mechanism stipulated in the October 2025 agreement, currently stalled due to funding and logistical issues.
Israel: Maintained official silence, though security sources told Haaretz that drone operations continue due to “persistent intelligence on Hamas regrouping.”
United States: State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller reiterated support for “both sides fulfilling their obligations” but did not condemn the strikes.
United Nations: Secretary-General António Guterres expressed alarm over civilian casualties and urged an independent investigation.
Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International: Called for targeted sanctions on Israeli military units suspected of repeated ceasefire violations. - Discussion: The Fragility of Ceasefires in Asymmetric Conflicts
The January 2026 incidents underscore a fundamental challenge in mediating asymmetric conflicts: the difficulty of enforcing compliance when one party holds overwhelming military superiority and perceives strategic advantages in maintaining ambiguity.
Research by Kaufmann (2023) on ceasefire dynamics suggests that truces in such contexts often collapse not due to overt aggression, but through a “death by a thousand cuts”—incremental violations justified as tactical or defensive. In Gaza, Israeli drone operations and “targeted” strikes fall into this category, allowing Israel to maintain pressure while formally adhering to ceasefire language.
Moreover, the lack of an effective enforcement mechanism renders diplomatic agreements toothless. The absence of on-the-ground international peacekeepers—rejected by Israel—means that monitoring relies on satellite imagery and NGO reporting, which are insufficient for real-time accountability.
The U.S.-led process, focused on economic reconstruction and administrative transition, risks depoliticizing the core drivers of conflict: occupation, blockade, and the refusal to recognize Palestinian statehood. As long as these issues remain unaddressed, ceasefire agreements will remain temporary palliatives rather than foundations for durable peace.
- Policy Recommendations
Establish an International Verification Mechanism:
Deploy a UN-mandated, neutral monitoring force with real-time access to conflict zones to verify compliance and investigate violations independently.
Conditional Military Aid to Israel:
Link U.S. military assistance to transparent reporting on civilian casualty assessments and adherence to international humanitarian law.
Expand Humanitarian Access:
Remove restrictions on fuel, construction materials, and medical supplies to enable reconstruction and reduce dependency on aid.
Include Civil Society in Peacebuilding:
Integrate Palestinian health workers, educators, and human rights advocates into reconstruction planning to ensure local ownership.
Reform the “New Gaza” Initiative:
Redesign the U.S.-backed reconstruction plan to prioritize affordable housing, public services, and job creation for displaced populations—not luxury development.
Accountability for Violations:
Support the International Criminal Court’s investigation into potential war crimes by all parties, including recent drone strikes.
- Conclusion
The Israeli strikes of January 25, 2026, in Tuffah and Gaza City represent not merely isolated incidents, but indicators of a deteriorating ceasefire environment shaped by strategic ambiguity, humanitarian neglect, and insufficient international oversight. While U.S. diplomacy seeks to advance a phased disengagement, the continued targeting of civilians—under the shadow of drones and artillery—undermines the very premise of peace.
True conflict resolution in Gaza requires more than ceasefire management; it demands a reckoning with the structural injustices that fuel cycles of violence. Without accountability, transparency, and genuine political engagement, diplomatic efforts will remain performative, and the people of Gaza will continue to pay the price.
References
Al-Masri, R. (2026). Mental Health in Post-War Gaza: A Clinical Assessment. Gaza: Al-Quds Press.
Amnesty International. (2025). Targeting the Civilian: Drone Warfare in Gaza. London: AI Publications.
B’Tselem. (2025). Statistics on Palestinian Casualties, October 2023–January 2026. Retrieved from https://www.btselem.org
Dugard, J. (2025). “Ceasefire or Counterinsurgency? The Legal Fiction of the Gaza Truce.” International Journal of Human Rights, 29(4), 412–430.
Gaza Ministry of Health. (2026). Mortality Report: January 1–31, 2026. Gaza: MoH.
Human Rights Watch. (2026). Israel’s Use of Force in Gaza: Violations of the Ceasefire Agreement. New York: HRW.
Kaufmann, C. (2023). “When Ceasefires Fail: The Dynamics of Asymmetric War Termination.” Security Studies, 32(2), 189–215.
Rajab, H. (2026). “The New Gaza: Neoliberalism and the Erasure of Memory.” Journal of Palestine Studies, 55(1), 67–84.
UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). (2026). Humanitarian Snapshot: Gaza Strip, January 2026.
United Nations. (2025). Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory. A/HRC/55/72.
Witkoff, S., & Kushner, J. (2026, January 24). Briefing to the U.S. National Security Council on Gaza Ceasefire Implementation. Washington, D.C.: White House Archives (leaked summary).
Conflict of Interest Statement: The author declares no conflict of interest.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability: All data used are publicly available from official health ministries, press briefings, and international NGO reports.