Beyond the Ceasefire

The initial phase of the U.S.-brokered peace plan for Gaza has been implemented. The deal, mediated by the U.S., Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey, has three phases. The first relates to immediate ceasefire and humanitarian actions, the second to demilitarization and security and the final phase to governance and reconstruction. While the first phase has been implemented and a ceasefire is in place, significant and more challenging issues remain unresolved, and progress on the subsequent phases is uncertain.

Thus, the prospects for a lasting peace in Gaza face significant obstacles. The achievements in Phase One are quite important as a ceasefire is in effect. Any pause in hostilities is undeniably a good thing. The ceasefire began on 10 October, following the agreement’s approval by the Israeli cabinet. Hamas released the remaining 20 live Israeli hostages on October 13, and Israel released nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners. Humanitarian aid has begun flowing into Gaza, though it is still considered insufficient to meet the vast needs of the population. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have withdrawn to agreed-upon lines, pulling back from populated areas like Gaza City and Khan Younis. These are positive developments.

Advertisement

However, Israel and Hamas continue to have fundamental disagreements, and the agreement’s fragility is evident in several key areas. A major sticking point is the return of the bodies of deceased Israeli hostages. President Trump’s plan stated that ‘within 72 hours of Israel publicly accepting this agreement, all hostages, alive and deceased, will be returned.’ Hamas failed to return all 28 bodies within the 72-hour timeline required by the deal. The remains of at least 19 hostages are still unaccounted for. Israel has accused Hamas of deliberately delaying the return of these remains. However, Hamas has stated that returning all the bodies is difficult and time-consuming as some bodies are buried in tunnels destroyed by Israeli forces or under the rubble of bombed buildings. It has requested specialized equipment to assist in locating and retrieving the bodies but accuses Israel of blocking its entry into Gaza.

Hamas also asserts that some remains are in areas now controlled by Israeli troops. Hamas has reportedly assured the US through mediators that it is working to return the bodies. The slow pace has provoked anger in Israel and resulted in the reduction of aid flow. Israel has restricted aid deliveries into Gaza, citing Hamas’s failure to return all remains. Reports indicate that far fewer than the 600 trucks per day stipulated in the agreement have been allowed in, and the humanitarian crisis is worsening as winter approaches. Israel has cited delays in the recovery of hostage remains as a reason for reducing the flow to about 300 trucks daily. The Rafah border crossing with Egypt remains sealed, forcing nearly all aid to enter via Israeli-controlled crossings like Kerem Shalom, subject to inspection delays and limits. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), a major provider of aid, continues to be blocked from bringing supplies into Gaza by Israeli authorities.

The UN humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher has emphasized the need for a massive increase in aid to meet the population’s survival needs. With colder months approaching, humanitarian organizations are rushing to provide adequate shelter and clothing. Many people are displaced and live in overcrowded conditions or destroyed homes. Aid access to northern Gaza remains extremely challenging due to damaged roads and closed border crossings, including Zikim and Erez. This area faces a confirmed famine as of August 2025, according to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC). Even after aid trucks enter Gaza, distribution is difficult due to widespread infrastructure damage, fuel shortages, and security risks. A UN monitoring report showed that only about one-fifth of aid leaving the crossings since May 2025 has reached intended recipients.

Instances of looting by desperate civilians and theft by armed groups complicate aid distribution and reduce the amount of assistance reaching people. The U.S.-brokered peace plan requires Hamas to disarm and cede governance of Gaza to a technocratic committee. However, Hamas has resisted this, despite facing intense pressure to comply. A senior Hamas official Mohammed Nazzal reportedly said that surrendering weapons is “out of the question and not negotiable”. Some reports suggest Hamas might consider handing over heavy weapons, like rockets, to a Palestinian or Arab entity, but it insists on keeping light arms for “self-defense”. This falls short of the full disarmament demanded by the U.S. and Israel. There are indications Hamas would likely only agree to give up weapons in exchange for significant political concessions, such as the full establishment of a Palestinian state after an Israeli withdrawal.

Hamas sees its weapons as a crucial element of leverage and political viability and will use the issue to bargain hard during phase two of the peace talks. Even after a ceasefire agreement in October 2025, Hamas has been observed reasserting its authority in Gaza and cracking down on rival factions. The comprehensive Gaza peace deal brokered by the U.S. in October 2025 outlines a phased withdrawal linked to conditions rather than a set schedule. Thus, it lacks a specific timeline for full withdrawal. Phase one of the agreement required Israel to withdraw its forces to a predetermined “yellow line,” leaving it in control of roughly 53 per cent of the Gaza Strip. This withdrawal was completed in mid-October 2025. Future withdrawals, which would eventually reduce Israel’s military presence, are dependent on specific conditions being met.

These include the disarmament of Hamas, the establishment of an international stabilization force, and the formation of a new governance structure for Gaza. The later phases of withdrawal are not tied to a specific timeline. The final stage is vaguely defined as a “security perimeter” that would “remain until Gaza is properly secure from any resurgent terror threat”. This lack of a clear schedule and the conditional nature of subsequent phases are major sticking points in the agreement. The details regarding the extent and pace of future Israeli withdrawals are still subject to negotiation. Disputes over these issues could jeopardize the long-term ceasefire. An International Stabilization Force (ISF) is planned to provide internal security in Gaza. Plans for the ISF are underway, but the details on contributing countries and funding remain under discussion. The force is a key part of the U.S.-brokered peace plan. U.S. defense officials have named Azerbaijan and Pakistan as leading contenders to supply troops.

Indonesia has publicly offered to send 20,000 or more troops under a United Nations mandate. Egypt, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, and Turkey are discussing troop contributions, with some already participating in coordination or recovery efforts. The Italian government has also publicly stated its willingness to take part. There are also major economic challenges ahead. The war caused Gaza’s GDP to plummet and led to mass unemployment. A UN report in 2024 projected it would take Gaza 350 years to restore its economy to 2022 levels if pre-war growth trends resumed. Rebuilding Gaza after widespread destruction will require a massive, international financial commitment, estimated by the UN at over $70 billion. This financial commitment relies on a stable security and governance environment and will require decades of international aid.

The displacement of many educated and skilled Palestinians from Gaza weakens the territory’s capacity for long-term recovery, as many may not return. The Third Phase of the agreement mentions a pathway toward Palestinian self-determination and statehood but offers few specific details. PM Netanyahu has explicitly and repeatedly rejected the idea of a Palestinian state, a position that has hardened in recent years. This stance was reaffirmed in September and October 2025, in response to growing international support for Palestinian statehood following the Gaza War. Clearly, there are challenges relating to post-war governance. The long-term political control of Gaza remains highly contested, as both sides have rejected key elements of the U.S.-led plan. The peace plan envisions Hamas having no role in Gaza’s future governance, a condition Hamas has rejected. Hamas believes Gaza’s government should be determined by Palestinians, while the Israeli government and the U.S. have different ideas.

The plan also includes a future role for the Palestinian Authority (PA), but only after it undergoes a sweeping reform programme, and it does not provide a clear timeline for this. However, the Palestinian Authority is widely seen as weak, corrupt, and illegitimate by many Palestinians, with the most recent polling showing low public trust. Netanyahu has also expressed opposition to the PA’s involvement. Trump’s Gaza peace plan says ‘while Gaza re-development advances and when the PA reform program is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognize as the aspiration of the Palestinian people’.

The language is intentionally vague and offers little clarity on how or when statehood would be achieved, particularly because it includes preconditions that are difficult to fulfill. The vagueness is central to Netanyahu’s acceptance of the plan, as he has repeatedly vowed to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. Some reports suggest Netanyahu agreed to the plan only after specific details on statehood and an Israeli withdrawal were removed. Thus, Trump’s 20-point peace plan may be a well-intentioned road-map, but the truth is many challenges stand in the way. The plan was negotiated primarily between the U.S. and Israel, with the Palestinian Authority not consulted on the final framework. C

ritics, including UN experts, have pointed out that an imposed plan that does not centre on the will of the Palestinians undermines their right to self-determination. The text of the plan outlines no specific timeline for a political settlement and simply concludes by stating that the U.S. “will establish a dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians to agree on a political horizon for peaceful and prosperous co-existence”. Summing up, while the Trump peace plan for Gaza enabled a ceasefire and hostage exchange, many of the most difficult and long-term issues had been deferred to later negotiations.

There are challenges ahead for subsequent phases, and its ambiguous language regarding statehood is a critical weakness. This ambiguity raises concerns that it could lead to further instability and leave the future status of Palestinians uncertain. Peace remains tenuous, and disagreements over the next steps or implementation details could lead to renewed conflict. The IDF plans to resume fighting if Hamas does not comply. Despite all these concerns, any pause in hostilities is undeniably a good thing as it offers crucial relief to civilians. It allows desperately needed aid like food, water, and medicine to enter Gaza and reach the civilian population, provides safe passage for those trapped in conflict zones helping them to reach safer areas, and creates the space for diplomatic efforts and negotiations which could hopefully lead to a longer-term settlement.

(The writer, a retired IFS officer, served as India’s Ambassador to Kuwait and Morocco and as Consul-General in New York)