The announcement by Israel army chief Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir that the yellow line inside Gaza is the “new border line” has put the fragile truce under intense strain. The line, originally introduced as a staging marker for the first phase of a three-step plan to halt the war and move Israeli forces out of the Strip, was intended to serve as a temporary military reference point. Zamir’s description of it as a permanent border, and as a forward defensive line for Israeli communities, has instead created a political and humanitarian flashpoint that now threatens to shape Gaza’s future far beyond the current truce.
Under the terms of the agreement drafted in Washington, Israeli troops were expected to withdraw behind the yellow line during the opening phase of the ceasefire. Their return to Israel was to follow in gradual stages as control of Gaza passed to an International Stabilisation Force. The line was never formally intended to signal a change in Gaza’s borders or to partition the territory. Yet Zamir has made it clear that his forces intend to hold these positions indefinitely. He said the army maintained operational control of extensive areas of Gaza and would remain on the defence lines to ensure Hamas could not reconstitute itself.
This interpretation grants Israel control over roughly 53 per cent of the Gaza Strip. The territory under Israeli control includes the northern city of Beit Hanoun, the southern city of Rafah, most of Gaza’s remaining agricultural land and the crucial Egyptian border crossing. For many diplomats and humanitarian officials who expected the yellow line to mark the beginning of a steady withdrawal, Zamir’s insistence that it is now a border has come as a shock. It also appears to clash directly with the text of the ceasefire agreement signed in October, which states that Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza.
Israeli fortification of the line has already transformed life inside the enclave. Palestinians were driven from the eastern half of Gaza by bombardments and evacuation orders. As a result, more than two million people now live in a narrow zone of coastal land. Israeli forces have been constructing concrete outposts and reinforcing earthworks along the yellow line even while the ceasefire holds. Soldiers have shot repeatedly at Palestinians they accused of crossing the boundary, including children. Satellite images suggest that some markers have been placed several hundred metres beyond the line shown in ceasefire maps, creating what appears to be a creeping expansion of the military zone.
Washington’s proposals for Gaza envisage Israeli troops progressively handing over territory to an International Stabilisation Force until a full withdrawal is complete, apart from a small security perimeter on Israel’s own border. Officials in Washington, however, have begun to speak privately of the yellow line as a possible long-term partition. One American source described the idea of reunifying Gaza after the conflict as “aspirational.” Planning documents produced by the US military outline a Gaza divided into a green zone under Israeli and international control, where reconstruction would begin, and a red zone left in ruins until further notice.
Qatar’s prime minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani, has warned that the truce could collapse without swift progress toward a permanent agreement. He said a meaningful ceasefire required a complete Israeli withdrawal, stability on the ground and freedom of movement for Palestinians who have endured almost a year of displacement and bombardment.
The argument over the yellow line has now become central to the impending second phase of the US plan, which American officials describe as no less difficult than the first. Phase Two is meant to begin once Hamas returns the final Israeli captive, a policeman killed on October 7, 2023. It focuses on disarmament and demilitarisation within Gaza and depends almost entirely on the deployment of an international force that is still not fully constituted.
Debate over the political stewardship of Gaza during this transition has brought further turmoil. Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, had been widely discussed as a possible senior figure in Gaza’s interim administration. He was mentioned by Donald Trump as a potential member of a “board of peace” which the US president intended to chair. Blair’s institute contributed ideas to the 20-point peace plan and he was said to be seeking an influential role.
Yet reports suggest Blair has been dropped quietly after objections from Arab and Muslim governments. His association with the 2003 invasion of Iraq and his mixed reputation as the Quartet’s Middle East envoy made his appointment contentious. Trump acknowledged in October that he needed to determine whether Blair was acceptable to all sides. Although American and Israeli officials still view him favourably, an ally has confirmed that Blair will not sit on the board, which is expected to be composed of serving leaders. His withdrawal highlights the disorder in Washington’s attempts to secure commitments for the proposed peacekeeping force and adds another complication to a process already strained by disagreements over the yellow line.