Lead

Ceasefires are meant to pause fighting, but across the Middle East, they are increasingly undermined by continued strikes. In the past week alone, Israel has bombarded southern Lebanon, the US has bombed radar sites in Iran, and Iran has launched missiles at Gulf nations, including Kuwait. Meanwhile, in Gaza, fatalities continue to mount despite a truce between Israel and Hamas that began in October 2025. This raises a central question: what does a ceasefire mean when the bombs keep falling?

Coverage Comparison

Two news organisations, Al Jazeera and The Intercept, offer contrasting perspectives on why ceasefires have not stopped the violence. Al Jazeera explains that ceasefires are fundamentally political agreements, not enforceable legal instruments, and highlights the US's role as a principal broker. The Intercept, however, frames the continuation of strikes as evidence of US and Israeli aggression, criticising mainstream media for perpetuating the notion that the ceasefire is merely "fragile" or "strained" rather than broken.

Key Claims

Continued Violence Despite Ceasefires

Israel and Lebanon announced a ceasefire on Wednesday, yet Israeli strikes on Lebanon continue, with attacks reported on the Naqoura and Nabatieh districts just days later, resulting in at least one death. This follows a pattern of truces that have not held. Similarly, the ceasefire between Iran and the US, formally in place since April 8, has not halted reciprocal attacks. Iran has fired missiles at the international airport in Kuwait, an attack that one outlet described as one of the biggest on a Gulf nation since the ceasefire began. The US, in turn, bombed radar and drone sites in Iran, according to the same outlet. In Gaza, despite a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas since October 10, 2025, Israel has carried out bombings, including an attack on a residential building that killed nine people. A separate report claims that at least 922 people have been killed and 2,786 injured in Gaza since the ceasefire was announced.

The Legal and Political Nature of Ceasefires

International law considers ceasefires to be legally binding, yet enforcement remains weak. The US holds veto power in the UN Security Council, a factor that limits the council's ability to act on violations, as reported by one outlet. Legal experts consulted by Al Jazeera emphasise that ceasefires are often political agreements rather than strongly enforceable legal instruments. Mark Kersten, assistant professor at the University of the Fraser Valley, defines a ceasefire as "a cessation of hostilities, but typically not understood to be a permanent one." Michael Lynk, emeritus professor at Western University in Canada, notes that unlike peace treaties, ceasefires often lack guarantors and can be breached with few immediate legal consequences.

Accusations of Continued Aggression

The Intercept reports that Iran has launched missiles at the international airport in Kuwait, and that the US and Israel continue to execute the war despite the ceasefire. The outlet describes the strikes as part of a "war of aggression" by the US and Israel, criticising what it sees as the mainstream media's spin on the situation. It argues that the geopolitical definition of a ceasefire hinges on whether both sides agree it remains in effect, which allows officials to maintain the fiction of a truce even as attacks continue.

Perspectives

Al Jazeera: Emphasises the lack of enforcement mechanisms for ceasefires, pointing to the political nature of such agreements and the US's role in limiting UN action.

The Intercept: Criticises the US and Israel for continuing what it calls a "war of aggression," and accuses mainstream media of framing the situation as a fragile ceasefire rather than an ongoing war.