So can you really say you have a ceasefire if one side has spent the night bombing the other, killing dozens of people? Can a peace deal encompass such violence?
It is an unanswerable question. Logic, pragmatism, politics, morality and diplomacy all roll into each other. Optimism butts up against pessimism.
But, right now, a form of pragmatic diplomacy probably comes out on top.
Israel felt it had no choice but to respond to what it saw as intolerable provocations by Hamas.
Firstly, there was the killing of a soldier who was, according to the IDF, involved in engineering works behind the yellow line.
The last time Israeli soldiers were killed during this ceasefire, reprisal attacks killed dozens of Palestinians, and it would have been naive to think that things would change this time.
Secondly, the Israeli government was already in a fit of anger over a video filmed by an IDF drone, which seems to show Hamas operatives burying human remains, simply to then dig them up again a little while later, pretend they have been freshly discovered, and hand them over to the Red Cross.
The three factors keeping the Gaza ceasefire in place – for now
Gaza latest: At least 60 killed by Israeli strikes – as Netanyahu accuses Hamas of breaching ceasefire
Israel says one of its soldiers killed in Gaza – as Netanyahu orders ‘powerful’ strikes
Gaza latest live: More than 100 killed in Gaza as Israel launches new strikes
For the Israeli government, and particularly those who were already dubious about the ceasefire deal, this offers proof that Hamas is acting in bad faith.
It also reinforces a widespread belief that Hamas knows where to find the dead hostages, and is simply dragging things out – something the group has always strongly denied.
But the response, with about 100 people killed by a ferocious bombardment, will strike many people around the world as hugely disproportionate.
Israel may claim it focused its fire on senior Hamas targets, but how many of those are actually left after two years of destruction? Of the 68,000 people killed by the Israeli military, a huge chunk were Hamas operatives.
Read more:
The three factors keeping the ceasefire in place
Netanyahu accuses Hamas of ‘clear violation’
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
The reality is that America is overseeing this ceasefire and setting the parameters.
Israel forewarned the White House of its plans, and the Americans agreed that some kind of retribution was in order. And, just like the previous occasion, it was intense, deadly, spectacular, and then it came to an end.
Ceasefire resuscitation
The question is whether the ceasefire can be resuscitated and then sustained after this. And the answer is probably yes.
Both sides accuse each other of bad faith and of constantly breaching the terms of the agreement. But, for the moment, both can also see benefits – Hamas is hoping it can continue to exert influence and play a role in running Gaza in the future.
Israel is, in the short term, expecting to get back its deceased hostages and may yet be planning to keep hold of some of the territory it presently holds in the Gaza Strip as a security buffer.
Arab States are hoping for the sort of stability that the region believes is key to a prosperous future. And Donald Trump is hoping to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday
The flip side is the voices in Israel calling for a resumption of hostilities, or the increasingly volatile situation on the ground in Gaza, where rival groups are emerging to challenge Hamas’s control and where the social structures of law, order, education, health and government simply aren’t in place – where much of the population is homeless and hopeless.
So do we have a ceasefire, even though the firing hasn’t ceased? Yes, I think we do – just about.
Because as long as the Americans want the structure to stay in place, and as long as the difficulties of phase two (who will run Gaza? Who will pay for the reconstruction? Who will command and staff a peacekeeping force? What’s the political mandate?) are strategically ignored, then the ambition of peace works for everyone.
But it’s fragile. And every time the rope is frayed, it gets a little weaker.
