There has officially been a ceasefire in Gaza since October. Whether a newsroom puts that word inside quotation marks has become one of the most loaded style choices in journalism — two little marks, doing the work of an editorial. * Watch Al Jazeera's headlines this month. July 1: "Israel kills three Palestinians in Gaza despite 'ceasefire'." July 6: "Israeli attacks on Gaza kill at least 6 as 'ceasefire' violations continue." July 9: "Israeli attacks on Gaza kill six people despite 'ceasefire'." The marks never come off. Back in June they even used it to date an era, like BC and AD: "post-'ceasefire' deaths hit 983." * That 983 is the argument. Al Jazeera's running count of Palestinians killed by Israeli strikes since the ceasefire began passed a thousand this month. Put "ceasefire" and a four-digit death toll in the same sentence often enough, their headlines imply, and the quotation marks start writing themselves. * NPR took the other road. Its piece this weekend: "9 months into a ceasefire, Israel now controls nearly 70% of Gaza." No quotes on the word — and then the story spends its entire length doing what the punctuation didn't: nine months into a ceasefire, the map moved. Same skepticism, different vehicle. Al Jazeera carries it in the punctuation; NPR carries it in the data. * Who's right? A style-guide purist sides with NPR — scare quotes editorialize, let facts do the arguing. Al Jazeera's counter is just as coherent: after a thousand deaths, printing the word straight is also an editorial choice — it certifies a label the facts stopped fitting months ago. There is no neutral option left on this word. That's what nine months of a "ceasefire" that keeps killing people does to language. * Two marks, smaller than a comma. In Gaza they carry a nine-month argument about whether a word still means what it says. Punctuation is usually cheap. Not here.