Eleven Killed in Gaza: A Detailed Look at the Latest Strikes and Fragile Ceasefire

On February 15, 2026, rescuers and Palestinian health officials reported that eleven Palestinians were killed in separate Israeli military operations in the Gaza Strip. This incident underscores the persistent volatility of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the precarious state of the US-brokered ceasefire agreement that has been in effect since October 10, 2025. This article provides a comprehensive, fact-based examination of the events, the historical context of the current war, the mechanics and failures of the ceasefire, and the broader geopolitical implications.

Introduction: A Fragile Peace Shattered

The killing of eleven civilians and combatants in Gaza on a single morning is not an isolated statistic but a stark symptom of a ceasefire in Gaza that is repeatedly strained to its breaking point. These latest casualties occurred amidst preparations for the second phase of a multi-stage diplomatic plan aimed at ending the 20-month war and establishing a new governance structure for the territory. The events highlight the immense challenges of implementing a lasting Gaza ceasefire deal amidst deep mutual distrust, ongoing military operations, and complex international mediation efforts involving the United States, the United Nations, and regional powers.

Key Points of the Latest Incident

Casualties: Palestinian civil defense and health officials state that eleven Palestinians were killed in two distinct Israeli strikes.
Locations: One strike hit a tent encampment in northern Gaza, killing at least six people. A second strike in the southern Gaza Strip killed five others.
Israeli Justification: The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) stated the strikes targeted “terror targets” and militants who had emerged from a tunnel into an area controlled by Israeli forces, alleging Hamas ceasefire violations.
Broader Context: These strikes are part of a pattern of near-daily violence since the ceasefire began, with the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry reporting at least 600 deaths during this period.
Diplomatic Status: The attacks coincided with final preparations for Phase Two of the US ceasefire plan, which includes the deployment of an international force and the formation of a new Palestinian administration.

Background: The Road to the Current Crisis

To understand the events of February 2026, one must trace the trajectory of the conflict since October 2023.

The October 7, 2023, Attack and Israel’s Military Response

The current phase of the conflict began with a large-scale, cross-border attack by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups from Gaza into southern Israel on October 7, 2023. According to Israeli authorities, approximately 1,200 people were killed, and 251 others were taken hostage. In response, Israel launched a sustained military campaign in Gaza. According to the Gaza health ministry (a source whose pre-war data was considered reliable by the UN), more than 71,820 people have been killed in the Israeli operation as of early 2026. The war has caused a severe humanitarian crisis, widespread destruction, and multiple internationally-brokered ceasefire attempts.

The US-Brokered Ceasefire Agreement (October 2025)

After months of indirect negotiations, a multi-phase ceasefire and hostage-prisoner exchange agreement was reached, mediated by the United States, Egypt, and Qatar. The agreement took effect on October 10, 2025. Its core provisions included:

An initial cessation of hostilities.
The phased release of Israeli hostages in exchange for the release of Palestinian prisoners.
A temporary Israeli military withdrawal from populated areas of Gaza.
Increased humanitarian aid deliveries.
Negotiations for a permanent ceasefire and the reconstruction of Gaza, to begin after the initial phases.

From the outset, both sides accused each other of violations. Israel alleged Hamas used the truce to regroup, rebuild tunnels, and launch attacks. Hamas accused Israel of insufficient aid, continued military operations in certain areas, and delays in the withdrawal and reconstruction process.

Analysis: Deconstructing the Latest Strikes and Ceasefire Failures

The incident resulting in eleven deaths is a microcosm of the systemic issues plaguing the ceasefire.

Conflicting Narratives of the February 15 Strikes

The two sides present fundamentally different accounts of the same events, a common feature of this conflict.

The Palestinian Account: The Palestinian Red Crescent reported a strike on a tent encampment for displaced civilians in northern Gaza. The targeting of a shelter for displaced persons, if verified, raises serious concerns under international humanitarian law regarding the principles of distinction and proportionality.
The Israeli Account: The IDF stated its forces struck “terror targets” after militants emerged from a tunnel into an area under Israeli military control. This framing positions the strike as a legitimate act of self-defense against combatants violating the ceasefire by operating in a demilitarized zone.

Independent verification of such incidents in real-time is exceptionally difficult due to access restrictions and the fog of war. The high civilian toll in the tent encampment strike, as reported by Palestinian rescuers, suggests a potential failure in Israel’s obligation to take feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm, though a full legal determination requires investigation.

The Pattern of “Near-Daily Violations”

The claim by both parties of “near-daily violations” points to a de facto collapse of the ceasefire’s core military terms in all but name. The Gaza health ministry’s tally of 600+ killed since the ceasefire began indicates a persistent, low-intensity level of violence that undermines the agreement’s purpose of providing sustained calm. This pattern suggests:

Tactical Ambiguity: Both sides may be engaging in actions they deem legally justified (e.g., preemptive strikes on imminent threats, continued tunnel operations) but which the other side views as clear violations.
Strategic Erosion: Each violation chips away at trust, creating a cycle of retaliation that makes the return to full compliance increasingly difficult.
Implementation Gaps: The agreement’s vague language regarding specific zones, definitions of “militant,” and verification mechanisms creates room for divergent interpretations exploited by both sides.

The Diplomatic Juggernaut: Phase Two and the “Board of Peace”

Despite the violence, diplomatic machinery for the next phase is moving forward, creating a stark contrast between political plans and ground realities.

The Second Phase: This stage is designed to tackle the most difficult issues: permanent Israeli withdrawal, the disarmament of Hamas, and the governance of post-war Gaza.
The Board of Peace: Announced by former U.S. President Donald Trump in January 2026, this body is proposed to have a UN Security Council mandate. Its stated tasks are to:
- Secure Gaza’s borders (including with Egypt and Israel).
- Oversee the disarmament of Hamas.
- Facilitate the formation of a technocratic Palestinian government in Gaza.
- Manage post-war reconstruction in Gaza.
International Force: A key component is a proposed multinational security force. Indonesia’s announced intention to deploy 8,000 personnel, if realized, would be a significant contribution, though the force’s exact mandate, rules of engagement, and relationship with Israeli security concerns remain undefined and a potential point of future friction.

The existence of this diplomatic track while fighting continues raises a critical question: Can a credible political process survive if the fundamental security conditions on the ground—a cessation of violence—are not first established and sustained?

The Iran Nuclear Shadow

The simultaneous visit of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Washington to meet with former President Trump highlights a parallel, high-stakes diplomatic track: efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear program. Netanyahu’s push for an agreement that halts uranium enrichment and missile development connects the Gaza conflict to the wider regional security architecture. Iran’s nuclear program, which Tehran insists is peaceful, is a core Israeli national security concern. Any perceived Iranian support for Hamas or Hezbollah during the Gaza conflict further fuels Israeli security calculations. The reported resumption of talks with Iran in Geneva indicates that the US is pursuing a dual-track strategy: managing the immediate Gaza crisis while addressing the long-term regional threat from Iran.

Practical Advice: Navigating Complex and Evolving News

Given the speed of developments and the volume of conflicting information, here is guidance for consumers of news on this topic.

How to Evaluate Reports from Conflict Zones

Source Attribution: Note who is reporting the information. Is it “Palestinian health officials,” “the IDF,” “a witness,” or “an unnamed security source”? Each carries a different inherent bias and level of access.
Seek Corroboration: Look for reports from multiple, independent international news agencies (Reuters, Associated Press, AFP) or observer organizations (UN OCHA, human rights groups) that may provide more neutral assessments.
Understand Terminology: Terms like “militant,” “terrorist,” “civilian,” and “combatant” have specific legal meanings but are often used loosely in public statements. Be alert to how language shapes perception.
Context is Key: A single strike must be understood within the context of the last 24 hours of violence, the stated terms of the ceasefire, and the historical pattern of engagement between the parties.

Understanding the Legal Framework

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), also known as the law of armed conflict, applies. Key principles include:

Distinction: Parties must distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians. Attacks must be directed only at military objectives.
Proportionality: An attack is prohibited if expected civilian harm would be excessive relative to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Precaution: All feasible precautions must be taken to avoid and minimize civilian harm.

Allegations of violations should be investigated by impartial bodies. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has an ongoing investigation into the situation in Palestine, though Israel does not recognize its jurisdiction.

FAQ: Common Questions About the Gaza Ceasefire and Conflict

Q: Is the ceasefire officially over?

A: Technically, the US-brokered agreement remains in effect, as neither side has formally announced its withdrawal. However, the near-daily military exchanges, including the strikes that killed eleven people, demonstrate that the ceasefire’s core commitment to sustained calm has comprehensively broken down in practice. The agreement is in a state of active, violent violation.

Q: What is a “technocratic Palestinian government”?

A: This refers to a government composed of experts and professionals (technocrats) rather than career politicians or factional representatives from groups like Fatah or Hamas. The idea, promoted in the Board of Peace plan, is that such a government could be seen as neutral and competent to administer Gaza during a transition period and oversee reconstruction, potentially paving the way for broader political reconciliation.

Q: Can an international force be deployed to Gaza?

A: Any deployment would require the consent of the relevant parties and a clear UN Security Council mandate. Israel would have serious security concerns about the rules of engagement for such a force and its potential interactions with Israeli forces. The willingness of troop-contributing countries to deploy in a potentially hostile environment is also a major variable. Indonesia’s pledge is a significant step, but the operational details are far from settled.

Q: How does the Iran nuclear issue connect to the Gaza war?

A: Israel views Iran as the primary strategic backer of both Hamas and Hezbollah. Israeli leaders argue that preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is inextricably linked to Israel’s long-term security and its ability to decisively confront Iran’s regional proxies, including in Gaza. Diplomatic efforts on Iran are therefore seen in Jerusalem as part of the broader, long-term solution to the conflict.

Q: What are the humanitarian conditions in Gaza right now?

A: Despite the ceasefire agreement’s provisions for increased aid, the UN and aid agencies consistently report that the delivery of food, medicine, fuel, and shelter materials remains severely inadequate to meet the needs of Gaza’s displaced population. The continued fighting, including strikes on tent camps, directly impedes aid distribution and creates new waves of displacement. The healthcare system is largely collapsed.

Conclusion: A Cycle of Violence Amidst Waning Diplomatic Hope

The tragic death of eleven more people in Gaza is a grim reiteration of a brutal status quo. While diplomatic actors push forward an ambitious plan for a second phase involving international forces and a new government, the daily reality on the ground is one of recurring bloodshed that hollows out the promise of that plan. The cycle of accusation and retaliation—where a strike on a tent camp is met with claims of preemptive self-defense—perpetuates a dynamic where each side’s actions are framed as reactive and justified, making objective accountability nearly impossible. The humanitarian catastrophe deepens with each passing day of incomplete cessation. The path from the current state of “violent truce” to a sustainable peace requires not just a new paper agreement, but a fundamental, verifiable change in the military and political behavior of all parties, backed by a credible international enforcement mechanism. Until then, the risk of further incidents like the one that killed eleven remains perilously high.

Sources and Further Reading

This analysis is based on reporting and data from the following established international sources. Readers are encouraged to consult them directly for ongoing updates.

United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) – oPt (occupied Palestinian territory) updates.
International Crisis Group – Reports on Israel-Palestine and regional diplomacy.
Reuters News Agency – Wire reports on military developments and diplomatic talks.
Associated Press – Fact-based reporting from the region.
BBC News – International coverage with source attribution.
Statements from official channels: Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Spokesperson’s Unit, U.S. Department of State, United Nations Security Council briefings.
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) – Guidance on International Humanitarian Law.

Disclaimer: The analysis presented aims for factual accuracy based on widely reported events. The legal characterization