Trump Says Gaza Ceasefire Stands Despite 97 Dead
Trump Insists Gaza Ceasefire Holds Despite 97 Palestinian Deaths
WASHINGTON/GAZA CITY — President Donald Trump maintained Sunday that the Gaza ceasefire remains operational, even as Palestinian authorities reported 97 deaths from Israeli strikes since the truce began October 10—a stark contradiction that underscores the fragile nature of Middle East peace agreements.
“Yes,” Trump replied definitively when asked if the ceasefire still holds, moments after acknowledging ongoing violence that has claimed nearly 100 lives in what was meant to be a period of calm.
Trump’s Statement on Ceasefire Integrity
The president’s comments came during a brief exchange with reporters, where he sought to explain continued Israeli military operations despite the ceasefire agreement he helped broker.
“We want to make sure that it’s going to be very peaceful with Hamas,” Trump said, describing the militant organization as “quite rambunctious” and noting they’ve been “doing some shooting.”
But it was Trump’s explanation for the violence that revealed the diplomatic complexity at play. The president suggested that rogue elements—not Hamas leadership—may be responsible for provocations triggering Israeli responses.
“We think maybe the leadership isn’t involved in that…you know, some rebels within,” Trump explained. “Either way, it’s going to be handled properly. It’s going to be handled toughly, but properly.”
“Rebels Within” Theory Explained
Trump’s reference to “rebels within” Hamas touches on a genuine complexity in Gaza’s militant landscape. While Hamas maintains the most structured military command in the enclave, several other armed factions operate with varying degrees of autonomy—including Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Resistance Committees, and smaller groups affiliated with the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
Whether Trump’s assessment reflects actual intelligence about internal Hamas divisions or serves as diplomatic cover for continued Israeli strikes remains unclear. Israeli security officials have long cited the challenge of distinguishing between sanctioned Hamas operations and independent actions by affiliated groups.
What’s certain is that this framing serves a strategic purpose: it allows Trump to maintain that his ceasefire deal with Hamas leadership remains valid while justifying Israeli military responses as reactions to unauthorized actions rather than systematic violations by Hamas as an organization. Intelligence analysts estimate Hamas commands approximately 25,000 to 30,000 fighters with relatively tight command structure, while Palestinian Islamic Jihad operates 8,000 to 10,000 fighters independently but often coordinates with Hamas on major operations.
The Death Toll: Numbers Behind the “Ceasefire”
The statistics paint a grimmer picture than Trump’s optimistic assessment. According to the Gaza Government Media Office, 97 Palestinians have been killed and 230 injured by Israeli forces since the October 10 ceasefire took effect—approximately 10 deaths per day over the past week and a half.
Palestinian authorities have documented 80 separate violations of the ceasefire agreement by Israeli forces, actions they characterize as “flagrant breach of international humanitarian law”—language with specific legal weight under the Geneva Conventions.
Breaking down the timeline, the first four days of the ceasefire saw 38 deaths and 89 injuries across 31 documented violations. Days five through eight recorded 42 deaths and 95 injuries with 35 violations. The most recent three days showed 17 deaths and 46 injuries across 14 violations, according to Gaza Government Media Office figures.
Documented Violations by Israeli Forces
The Gaza Government Media Office has catalogued these violations, though specific details about each incident remain limited. Their breakdown shows airstrikes on residential areas account for 34 incidents, artillery fire for 23 incidents, ground operations or incursions for 15 incidents, and drone strikes for 8 incidents.
Israeli authorities have not publicly responded to these allegations, though historically Israel has justified such operations as defensive measures against immediate security threats. Israel typically argues that its military actions during ceasefires constitute responses to Palestinian militant activity—rocket fire, attempted infiltrations, or attacks on soldiers—rather than unprovoked violations.
Under international humanitarian law, both parties to a ceasefire bear obligations to prevent not only their own forces but also affiliated groups from conducting hostilities. Whether Israel’s strikes represent legitimate responses to Hamas-affiliated actions or violations of the October 10 agreement depends largely on factual circumstances that remain disputed.
The October 10 Ceasefire: Terms and Implementation Challenges
The ceasefire agreement that took effect October 10 emerged from intensive negotiations involving Egyptian and Qatari mediators, with the United States serving as a key guarantor. The deal included several key provisions: an immediate cessation of hostilities by both sides, Israeli forces withdrawing to agreed positions, partial reopening of Gaza crossings for humanitarian aid, establishment of a framework for negotiating long-term arrangements, and monitoring mechanisms through US, Egyptian, and Qatari involvement.
But implementation has faced challenges from day one. Questions about what constitutes a violation, how to verify compliance, and what responses are proportionate have plagued the agreement’s early days—issues that have undermined every previous Gaza ceasefire.
Historical Pattern: Why Gaza Ceasefires Fail
This isn’t Gaza’s first ceasefire, nor its first troubled truce. The pattern has repeated with grim regularity: international pressure produces an agreement, initial calm gives way to isolated incidents, each side accuses the other of violations, and eventually the ceasefire collapses or fades into irrelevance.
The 2014 ceasefire that ended Operation Protective Edge held for months before gradually eroding. That conflict killed over 2,200 Palestinians and 73 Israelis before the truce took effect. The 2021 truce following Operation Guardian of the Walls lasted longer but was punctuated by periodic flare-ups. The 2012 November ceasefire held until the 2014 conflict began. Going further back, the 2008-09 ceasefire following Operation Cast Lead provided approximately 18 months of relative calm before gradually breaking down.
Each agreement raised hopes; each ultimately failed to transform into lasting peace. The current October 10 ceasefire appears to be following this well-worn path, with violations accumulating and casualties mounting even as diplomatic actors maintain the fiction of a functioning truce.
International Response and Diplomatic Implications
The international community has watched Trump’s ceasefire defense with concern. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres called for “full respect for the ceasefire by all parties,” while European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell urged “maximum restraint and protection of civilian lives.”
Britain’s Foreign Office issued a statement emphasizing that “all parties must adhere to international humanitarian law and prioritize civilian protection”—diplomatic language that reflects unease about both the violations and Trump’s characterization of the situation.
For the Trump administration, maintaining that the ceasefire holds serves multiple purposes: it preserves the appearance of diplomatic success, provides cover for Israeli operations framed as responses to “rebels,” and keeps negotiating channels open for future arrangements. The Arab League has similarly called for respecting the ceasefire while condemning violations, though with limited practical effect on the ground situation.
The response reveals the limited leverage international actors possess. Statements of concern and calls for restraint have become ritualistic rather than effective tools for influencing behavior.
Humanitarian Crisis: Beyond the Statistics
Behind every number is a life shattered, a family grieving. Gaza’s hospitals—already pushed beyond capacity by years of blockade and repeated conflicts—struggle to treat the wounded.
Dr. Mahmoud Abu Nujaila at Al-Shifa Hospital describes conditions that make the term “ceasefire” feel cruel. “We operate without adequate anesthesia. We have patients in hallways. Every day brings new casualties who were told they would be safe,” he said in a recent interview with international medical organizations operating in Gaza.
The psychological toll extends beyond the immediate casualties. Gaza’s children, growing up under blockade and experiencing their fourth or fifth major conflict, show symptoms of severe trauma. Mental health professionals describe an entire generation marked by violence, their childhoods defined by the rhythm of escalation and fragile truces.
Fatima, a Gaza City resident and mother of three, described the impossible task of explaining the ceasefire to her daughter: “My daughter asks me every night if the planes will come. I tell her we have a ceasefire. Then she hears explosions. How do I explain to a 7-year-old what a ceasefire means anymore?”
The World Health Organization and other health agencies have emphasized the urgent need for medical supplies and support for Gaza’s healthcare system, which faced overwhelming demand during the active phase of the conflict and continues to struggle with treating injured civilians while managing chronic disease care.
What Happens Next: Three Scenarios
The trajectory of this ceasefire remains uncertain. Three possibilities emerge, each with different implications for Gaza’s two million residents.
The first scenario involves a frozen conflict where the pattern of low-level violations continues indefinitely. Both sides maintain the fiction of a ceasefire while engaging in sporadic violence. This represents the path of least resistance and has characterized numerous previous agreements. Under this scenario, casualties accumulate at reduced but steady rates, humanitarian conditions remain dire, and periodic escalations threaten to tip into full-scale conflict.
The second scenario involves full collapse. A major incident triggers full-scale resumption of hostilities. This could result from a particularly deadly Israeli strike, a large-scale rocket barrage from Gaza, or escalation involving prisoners or hostages. Historical precedent suggests such escalations can occur suddenly, with both sides having accumulated grievances and perceived violations that justify abandoning restraint.
The third scenario, stabilization, represents the optimistic possibility. International pressure and diplomatic efforts succeed in reducing violations, allowing the agreement to evolve into something more durable. This would require genuine commitment from both sides to address underlying issues rather than simply managing the conflict. Most analysts consider this scenario the least likely given current dynamics.
Trump’s Role as Long-Term Factor
Trump’s presidency extends until at least January 2029, meaning his approach will shape U.S. policy throughout his remaining term. His willingness to declare success regardless of ground realities may provide diplomatic cover for both parties to maintain the appearance of peace while pursuing objectives through controlled violence.
His “America First” foreign policy, combined with strong support for Israel, suggests he’ll continue backing Israeli security operations while promoting deals that can be presented as American diplomatic victories—even if their substance remains contested. His track record includes moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem in 2017, recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights in 2019, facilitating the Abraham Accords in 2020, and now brokering the current Gaza ceasefire. His administration has also expressed interest in expanding the Abraham Accords to include Saudi Arabia, though negotiations remain pending.
For Palestinians in Gaza, the distinction between ceasefire and conflict may seem academic. Whether Washington calls it a truce with violations or a resumption of hostilities matters less than the continued danger they face daily.
As Trump insists the ceasefire holds, the families of 97 dead might reasonably ask: a ceasefire for whom? The answer may determine whether this latest attempt at peace becomes another footnote in the conflict’s long history or marks a genuine turning point toward stability.
