A recent analytical study argues that the ceasefire in Gaza has not led to a genuine end of lethal targeting, but has instead altered the way such operations are carried out. Rather than a clear transition to stability, the situation is described as a continuation of controlled, selective actions carried out in a more limited and fragmented form.

The paper describes this shift as a move away from open-ended large-scale escalation towards a model in which violence is managed through precise, intelligence-driven operations. In this framework, the objective is presented as containing perceived threats over time rather than eliminating them entirely, resulting in a pattern of intermittent strikes that persist even after formal cessation of large-scale fighting.

It also highlights that Gaza’s fragmented geography, the collapse of stable frontlines, and the deep overlap between civilian areas and security dynamics have made it easier for such operations to become routine. As a result, what might formally be labelled as ceasefire violations is instead interpreted as part of an ongoing system of pressure and attrition embedded within the broader context of a prolonged genocidal war.