The recent ceasefire, described as the first phase of US President Donald Trump’s “peace plan” announced on 29 September 2025, represents an important yet fragile step towards ending the ongoing war in Gaza. While the agreement has facilitated the release of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners and enabled limited humanitarian access, the absence of a comprehensive framework for sustainable peace raises serious concerns regarding governance, legitimacy, and regional stability. This article analyses the immediate outcomes of the ceasefire, situates them within the geopolitical context of Trump’s twenty-point plan, and assesses the profound challenges of preventing a political vacuum in Gaza and a relapse into violence.
Under the terms of the agreement, Hamas initially released all the living Israeli hostages, while Israel freed nearly two thousand Palestinian prisoners. The plan also mandates the delivery of emergency humanitarian assistance to Gaza’s civilian population, who continue to endure catastrophic humanitarian conditions. Most of the buildings in Gaza are in ruins; basic infrastructure has been destroyed, and public health and sanitation have collapsed. In the absence of a credible long-term plan, the ceasefire risks serving merely as an interlude in the recurring cycle of violence. Trump’s twenty-point plan has been promoted as a roadmap for stability and reconstruction in Gaza. However, the document lacks the specificity typically associated with durable agreements. While it delineates a ceasefire and an incremental demilitarisation process, it provides limited guidance on critical issues such as sovereignty, governance, and the resolution of identity-based grievances. The plan explicitly presents the ceasefire as the first phase of a broader process, yet it leaves open fundamental political questions. In this sense, it operates more as a framework for negotiation than as a binding accord. Much will depend on whether international and regional actors can sustain diplomatic momentum in the coming months.
As part of the initial phase, Israel has reduced its territorial control of Gaza from approximately seventy-five per cent to around fifty per cent. Further withdrawals are contingent on Hamas’s full demilitarisation and demonstrated capacity to prevent renewed attacks against Israel. This arrangement establishes a precarious interdependence between security measures and political steps: Israel’s disengagement is tied to Hamas’s compliance, while Gaza’s reconstruction depends on the gradual easing of Israel’s military control. The inherent asymmetry of this dynamic renders the ceasefire particularly vulnerable to collapse.
A notable feature of the current process is the extensive international and regional coordination achieved under Trump’s leadership. Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey have played instrumental roles in facilitating indirect negotiations, while the United States has assumed the position of principal mediator. However, the structure of the proposed international stabilisation force remains unclear and is still under discussion in the United Nations (UN) Security Council. It is unlikely to operate under a formal UN mandate, reflecting Israel’s longstanding distrust of the organisation, but may nonetheless receive UN endorsement, similar to the multinational mission established for Haiti in 2023. Regional actors, such as Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and others are expected to play prominent roles within this force. Their participation will be crucial for ensuring legitimacy and avoiding the perception of a Western-led intervention.
The most pressing political question concerns the future governance of Gaza. Trump’s plan proposes the creation of a technocratic interim administration, a transitional body charged with overseeing reconstruction and basic governance until a permanent arrangement is established. This body is to coordinate its activities through a “Board of Peace,” led by international and Palestinian experts in collaboration with regional partners under Trump’s chairmanship. The legitimacy of such a transitional administration, however, will depend on its ability to secure meaningful Palestinian participation and to avoid being perceived as an externally imposed structure. The Palestinian Authority, under President Mahmoud Abbas, is expected to engage in the coordination process but not to lead it. In the absence of a unified political framework, Gaza risks descending into localised conflict as clans and militias compete for authority. The weakening of Hamas does not automatically translate into stability; rather, political fragmentation could produce a dangerous governance vacuum that international and regional actors may struggle to fill.
The UN is likely to assume responsibility for humanitarian assistance and elements of reconstruction, although it will remain excluded from military and policing functions. The role of UNRWA, the UN agency assisting Palestinian refugees, remains contentious. While the agency possesses deep institutional experience in the region, it has faced sustained criticism from Israel and its allies for allegedly perpetuating anti-Israel sentiment. Trump’s plan references the “deradicalisation” of Palestinian society, implying tighter international oversight of schools and curricula. Such measures risk undermining local autonomy and could complicate efforts to build trust between international agencies and Palestinian communities.
A persistent weakness in past ceasefires has been the lack of credible third-party monitoring and enforcement mechanisms. Trump’s initiative acknowledges this shortcoming but fails to establish a clear institutional framework for verification. Without systematic monitoring—ideally by an independent international body, violations by either party may go unaddressed, jeopardising the fragile ceasefire. Although the two-state solution remains formally endorsed by most international states and actors, its practical feasibility appears increasingly uncertain. Core issues such as borders, the status of Jerusalem, Palestinian refugee rights, and Israeli settlements in the West Bank remain unresolved. Within Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition, as well as in the parliament, continues to oppose the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state. The current ceasefire, therefore, risks entrenching a form of “managed instability”, a condition in which violence is contained but political sovereignty remains indefinitely deferred.
The immediate cessation of hostilities is a necessary precondition for political progress, yet it remains far from sufficient. The absence of a coherent long-term strategy, the fragility of interim governance arrangements, and the risk of a power vacuum together threaten to undermine the process from within. Nonetheless, the most encouraging feature of the current diplomatic intervention is the unprecedented degree of international and regional coordination. Sustaining this diplomatic alignment will be critical to any prospects for stability in Gaza. Ultimately, the durability of the ceasefire will depend on the persistence of multilateral engagement, credible verification mechanisms, and the political will to confront the underlying grievances that continue to fuel the conflict.
