Three weeks after the announcement of a US-brokered ceasefire on October 10, 2025, the Gaza conflict remains suspended between cautious optimism and deepening mistrust. The ceasefire, hailed as a breakthrough after two years of devastating warfare following Hamas’s October 7 attack and Israel’s sweeping retaliation, was underpinned by President Donald Trump’s ambitious 20-point peace framework. Yet the plan’s implementation has already encountered significant roadblocks, revealing the fragility of the truce and the unresolved tensions beneath its surface.
The catalyst for Trump’s proposal was a dramatic and destabilising incident in September: Israel’s alleged attempt to assassinate Hamas negotiators in Qatar, who were then considering a prior US ceasefire offer. Though the operation failed, it triggered a diplomatic crisis that galvanized Gulf states and cast a long shadow over Washington’s credibility as a neutral mediator. In response, Trump unveiled the 20-point plan, a sweeping blueprint for de-escalation, hostage exchange, transitional governance, and long-term stabilization.
At its core, the plan envisions the release of all remaining hostages held in Gaza, including the deceased, in exchange for the liberation of over 1,900 Palestinian prisoners. This would initiate a transitional phase marked by Hamas’s disarmament and the installation of a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian administration. Oversight would be provided by an international “Board of Peace,” chaired by Trump and including figures such as former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, alongside other unnamed global leaders.
Yet the contours of the plan remain vague, particularly regarding the proposed International Stabilisation Force. Tasked with securing Gaza, training vetted Palestinian police, and preventing weapons smuggling, the force is described as the “long-term internal security solution.” But potential contributors, including Jordan and Germany, have demanded clarity on its mandate, with calls for a UN framework. The absence of defined rules of engagement, command structures, and coordination mechanisms with the IDF has left key stakeholders hesitant to commit troops.
Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority’s role in the plan is conspicuously marginal. Long plagued by questions of legitimacy and relevance, the PA was excluded from early negotiations and denied visas to attend key US-hosted meetings. Mahmoud Abbas’s pre-recorded video address to the UN General Assembly, played in a half-empty hall as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu delivered his speech, symbolised the Authority’s diminished stature. Among Palestinians, the PA is widely viewed as ineffective and disconnected, raising doubts about its capacity to govern Gaza or contribute meaningfully to the transitional phase.
On the ground, the ceasefire has already begun to fray. Hamas returned 20 surviving hostages and the remains of 17 others, but disputes over the condition and identification of the bodies have reignited tensions. Israel accused Hamas of violating the agreement by returning partial remains of a hostage already recovered, prompting renewed airstrikes. Hamas, in turn, cited the difficulty of locating remains buried under Gaza’s rubble.
Further destabilizing the truce was a November 1 incident in which US Central Command released drone footage showing Hamas operatives looting a humanitarian aid truck in southern Gaza. The operatives allegedly assaulted the driver and stole the vehicle, raising alarm about the breakdown of order and the proliferation of armed factions and criminal gangs in the enclave.
Diplomatic efforts continue, with indirect talks underway in Sharm El-Sheikh and a regional meeting scheduled for November 3 in Istanbul. As the international community convenes in Egypt and Turkey to assess the situation, expectations remain tempered. The Istanbul meeting, hosted by Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan and attended by key regional actors, may offer a platform for dialogue, but with the contours of the International Stabilization Force still undefined, and the Palestinian Authority sidelined by questions of legitimacy and relevance, the path forward remains uncertain.
Ultimately, the 20-point plan offers a framework, but not yet a foundation, for peace. Its success depends on more than negotiated terms; it requires credible enforcement, regional buy-in, and a legitimate Palestinian partner. While the ceasefire and its accompanying framework were agreed to by Hamas’s political leadership, many of whom are based in Qatar, the actual execution depends on militant actors operating within Gaza. The negotiators seated at the table do not command the fighters on the ground, raising critical questions about their ability to enforce commitments, ensure compliance, and speak credibly on behalf of those who must carry out the plan’s most sensitive provisions.
As both sides accuse each other of truce violations and the international community hesitates to fill the security vacuum, Gaza’s future hangs in the balance, caught between the promise of transition and the persistence of conflict.