Trump's Ceasefire in Israel-Gaza

Trump’s Ceasefire in Israel-Gaza; Charting the Prospects and Challenges for

Middle Eastern Stability

by Kalum Rock and Jonathan Lott

“And in an unprecedented achievement, virtually the entire region has endorsed the plan that

Gaza will be immediately demilitarized, that Hamas will be disarmed, and Israel’s security will

no longer be threatened in any way, shape, or form.”

- President Donald Trump, in a speech to Israel’s Knesset

The U.S. as Architect and Arbiter

The war between Israel and Hamas has taken a devastating toll, leaving over 68,000

Palestinians and about 2,000 Israelis dead since October 2023. Against this backdrop, the

Trump administration introduced a 20 point peace plan for Gaza on September 29, 2025. It was

designed as a distinctly American initiative to bring an end to the conflict, reestablish

Washington’s influence in the region, and showcase Trump’s return to global leadership.

By October 10, 2025, a U.S. brokered ceasefire came into effect. Washington quickly moved

from mediator to guarantor, coordinating follow-up meetings with regional partners and

pledging to oversee the plan’s enforcement. At the Sharm El Sheikh summit on October 13,

Trump secured public backing from Egypt, Qatar, and Türkiye, presenting the deal as a

testament to U.S. diplomacy and cooperation in the region.

Yet as calm settled over Gaza’s skyline, the more difficult work was only beginning.

Implementing demilitarization, establishing a multinational stabilization force, stewarding an

interim government, and managing reconstruction efforts will determine whether this

agreement marks a genuine turning point or merely a temporary pause in violence. This article

was completed on 24 October; updates to the situation in Gaza are ongoing.

Ceasefire and Hostage Exchanges: Washington’s First Success

The first stage of the plan called for Hamas to release all 20 surviving Israeli hostages and

transfer the remains of 28 deceased captives in exchange for approximately 2,000 Palestinian

detainees. On October 13, 2025, Hamas released the surviving hostages to the International

Committee of the Red Cross, and Israel freed nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners, most of whom

were sent to Gaza and the West Bank.

However, as of October 18, only 13 bodies of the 28 deceased hostages have been returned.

Hamas has attributed the delay to the difficulty of retrieving remains buried under extensive

rubble from Israeli airstrikes, a claim Israeli officials have questioned as an excuse for

noncompliance. This unresolved issue has created growing frustration in Jerusalem and could

reignite hostilities if viewed as deliberate obstruction.

Although the ceasefire has largely held, Gaza’s media office accused Israel of 47 violations in

the first week of the ceasefire, resulting in 38 deaths and over 140 injuries. Israel, in turn,

alleged Hamas militants have fired sporadic rockets and conducted sniper fire. These incidents

highlight the fragility of the truce and the continuing challenge for Washington to maintain

stability. The recent suspension of aid into Gaza also presents difficulties for the protection of

civilians.

For the Trump administration, the initial success of the ceasefire offered an opportunity to

demonstrate its unique leverage over both sides. Yet every violation and delay in fulfilling terms

reminds observers how precarious the peace remains. Some Gaza residents fear an imminent

breakdown of the ceasefire, and a return to previous hostilities.

Demilitarization and Israeli Withdrawal: The Core Challenge

The next phase of the 20 point plan—Hamas’s full disarmament and Israel’s phased withdrawal

from Gaza—presents the greatest challenge. The framework requires Hamas to hand over

weapons, dismantle tunnels, and relinquish control of border crossings to an international

force. Recent evidence suggests Hamas is already reemerging and competing against clans and

militias to reassert control of Gaza.

Hamas has rejected unconditional disarmament, insisting that doing so would leave Gaza

defenseless. The scale of its tunnel network and weapons caches make verification nearly

impossible without full cooperation. Israeli intelligence estimates that thousands of small arms

and several hundred rockets remain hidden. Trump has stated that “If they don’t disarm, we

will disarm them and it will happen quickly and perhaps violently,” hinting at potential U.S. or

allied pressure if negotiations stall. Israel has meanwhile been arming families and militias in

Gaza who are opposed to rule under Hamas, adding complexity to a fragile ceasefire.

This phase is particularly sensitive for Washington. If the U.S. pushes Israel to withdraw too

quickly, it risks provoking accusations of compromising Israel’s security. Conversely, failing to

ensure demilitarization would expose the U.S. to criticism for overseeing an unstable

agreement. The delicate balance between credibility and restraint underscores how difficult it

will be to turn this plan into a lasting framework for peace.

Should disarmament fail, the ceasefire could collapse entirely, potentially drawing the U.S. back

into active diplomatic or even coercive involvement. This risk highlights how the credibility of

both Trump and U.S. foreign policy now hinges on compliance by actors with little mutual trust.

The International Stabilization Force and U.S. Oversight

Central to Trump’s proposal is the creation of an International Stabilization Force (ISF) led by

Egypt, with contributions from Türkiye, Indonesia, and Azerbaijan. Its mandate is to maintain

order and monitor the ceasefire during Gaza’s political transition. A small number of British

soldiers were also recently deployed to Gaza to monitor the ceasefire.

As of October 18, 2025, negotiations over troop numbers, jurisdiction, and command structure

are still underway. The United Nations has not officially endorsed the force, though U.S. officials

argue that a regional mechanism will be more agile and credible. Without a formal framework,

however, the initiative’s effectiveness remains uncertain.

For Washington, the ISF allows projection of stability through allies rather than American

troops, consistent with Trump’s “America First” doctrine. Yet reliance on regional forces could

limit U.S. control if disagreements arise over operational rules or engagement policies.

Governance and the Technocratic Transition

The fourth stage of the plan envisions a technocratic interim government to administer Gaza

until a reformed Palestinian Authority assumes control. On October 13, the U.S. and Egypt

announced the appointment of 15 Palestinian technocrats to this temporary body.

This approach aligns with Washington’s preference for politically neutral governance, drawing

on lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan. However, sidelining Hamas may deepen divisions in Gaza,

where many view the interim administration as externally imposed. Nevertheless, the peace

plan demands that Hamas have no role in governing Gaza, and Israel will not accept a future

where it does. Resistance to the legitimacy of this temporary governing may create friction

among Palestinians that undermines early progress.

For the U.S., this phase carries both symbolic and practical stakes. Success would bolster

America’s reputation for stabilizing fragile states, while failure could expose limits to its state-

building ambitions. The credibility of American diplomacy may hinge as much on how Gaza is

governed in the next months as on the disarmament process itself.

Reconstruction and American Soft Power

The reconstruction of Gaza is expected to cost around 70 billion U.S. dollars, according to the

UN, World Bank, and EU. More than 90 percent of schools are damaged or destroyed, hospitals

remain largely nonfunctional, and debris obstructs much of the city infrastructure. The UN

released 11 million dollars in emergency aid on October 14 to begin relief operations, while

Qatar pledged 4 billion dollars contingent on the continuation of the ceasefire. Both President

Trump and former British PM Tony Blair are said to be part of a “Board of Peace” overseeing

reconstruction of Gaza.

This reconstruction phase also serves Washington’s strategic goal of restoring its soft power.

The Trump administration has emphasized that visible progress in rebuilding Gaza will serve as

proof that U.S.-led diplomacy can deliver tangible results. Yet logistical obstacles and political

divisions have slowed early implementation.

Regional Dynamics and U.S. Strategy

The plan’s stability depends not only on local compliance but also on regional actors. Iran has

denounced the deal as “a mirage of peace,” while Hezbollah continues to provoke along Israel’s

northern frontier. At the Sharm summit, Trump signed the “Declaration for Enduring Peace and

Prosperity” with Egypt, Qatar, and Türkiye, signaling a symbolic coalition under U.S. leadership.

While some in Washington praise the plan as a pragmatic step toward stability, others warn it

may be more about optics than lasting peace. Still, the agreement has re-centered U.S.

influence in the region and offered Trump a platform to reclaim America’s image as a decisive

global power.

Unfinished Business

Although this ceasefire is a necessary step towards deescalation in Gaza, it does not address a

number of issues related to this conflict. Iran is not mentioned in the 20-point peace plan, and

its 10-year long nuclear agreement expired several days after the conclusion of the ceasefire.

Hezbollah and the Houthi rebels in Yemen are likewise excluded from mention in the peace

plan. Lebanon’s government is reportedly currently struggling to disarm Hezbollah without

provoking open violence in the country. Meanwhile, the Houthis have reportedly agreed to stop

attacking cargo ships in the Red Sea—for a while, anyway. Some observers fear a restart of

hostilities if the ceasefire falls through.

No multilateral agreement will be able to stymie the investigations into Israel’s PM Benjamin

Netanyahu, nor the former Israel Minister of Defense, Yoav Gallant, who have both been

indicted by the International Criminal Court. And although actions in future months may affect

the International Court of Justice’s inquiry, prompted by South Africa, into potential genocide

conducted in Gaza, states are not withdrawing their case, and the investigation and

deliberations will continue for months more. Nor did the 20-point peace plan mention the West

Bank, still an area of tension between Israelis and Palestinians.

Trump’s Gamble and America’s Legacy

From a U.S. standpoint, the Gaza ceasefire represents both a calculated, tentative, diplomatic

victory and also a precarious experiment in negotiation. The Trump administration can point to

clear accomplishments—the ceasefire’s implementation, hostage releases, and early

reconstruction pledges—but the plan’s deeper success will depend on sustained cooperation

and active enforcement.

Trump has also hinted that the initiative should earn him the Nobel Peace Prize. Reports

suggest he expressed frustration after this year’s prize was awarded before his plan was

unveiled, viewing it as a missed recognition. Analysts note that if the ceasefire endures and

reconstruction advances, Trump could be considered a contender next year, marking a symbolic

victory to his foreign policy agenda.

Whether that recognition comes or not, the ultimate measure will be whether U.S. diplomacy

can turn this fragile truce into a durable peace that stabilizes both Gaza and the region at large.