Link to Article: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gaza-truce-progress-slow-israeli-hamas-violence-persists-2025-11-24
This article talks about how the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas is still very unstable, even though it’s been in place for weeks. On November 24, 2025, Palestinian medics said two people were killed by an Israeli drone strike near Khan Younis, and shelling in Gaza City caused another death. Israel claimed the people they targeted were moving into zones considered a threat, which they said justified the strike. So even though the truce was supposed to slow everything down, these kinds of incidents keep happening and make it hard for anyone on the ground to feel safe. The whole situation between them shows that even when a ceasefire is technically active and an agreement has been made, it doesn’t always mean the violence completely stops or that both sides fully trust the agreement.
This article shows how difficult it is to keep a ceasefire working when neither side fully trusts the other. Israel’s actions fit the realist ideology, where security comes first, even if it risks their truce. Palestinians are experiencing more deaths and might start to lose faith in any peace process. This situation is a security dilemma because each side thinks it’s responding defensively, but it just makes the other feel threatened. Without a clear enforcement system or someone actually making sure both sides stick to the truce, it becomes almost symbolic instead of effective. It also affects the broader Middle East because instability in Gaza usually impacts other countries and political groups across the region.
If this situation continues, there will be multiple stakeholder responses. Humanitarian groups will probably push harder for secure access into Gaza and demand stronger protections for civilians. Organizations like the Red Crescent and UN relief agencies will want more consistent ceasefire conditions so they can deliver food, water, and medical supplies. Meanwhile, neighboring governments that already feel the impact of instability, like Jordan and Egypt who may increase diplomatic pressure to keep the ceasefire alive. Regional political groups might also use these incidents to shape their own messaging or criticize the involved parties. The overall stakeholder environment will become more complicated because every new incident adds tension to the situation, and every actor has their own priorities and concerns regarding the conflict.
This event connects really clearly to class topics like realism, security dilemmas, and the limits of international agreements. From a realist point of view, Israel’s actions show how states prioritize survival and military strength even during diplomatic agreements. On the other side, the Palestinians loss of trust shows how fragile ceasefires can be when power is imbalanced. The situation also represents the challenge of enforcing norms without strong institutions backing them. This ties into what we learned about why some ceasefires fail, lack of monitoring, miscommunication, and unequal power distribution. It also links to human security discussions by showing how civilians are often impacted the most, even when peace is technically in place.