Gaza ceasefire makes little progress after a year
The first phase freed hostages and limited the fighting, but disarmament and reconstruction remain deadlocked.
A year after the United States-brokered ceasefire in Gaza, the second phase has barely got under way. According to AP and Reuters, Israeli attacks are continuing and disagreements over Hamas’s disarmament, the withdrawal of the Israeli army and future governance remain unresolved.
The ceasefire began on 10 October 2025 and was intended to lay the foundations for a broader plan. According to the reporting consulted, the remaining Israeli hostages were released, Palestinian prisoners were freed and humanitarian access increased. The agreement was then supposed to lead to a new Palestinian administration, international security support, the disarmament of Hamas and an Israeli withdrawal.
Those subsequent steps have not been carried out. AP writes that Israel is still carrying out attacks and that virtually no reconstruction has begun. Reuters reports that Israel controls approximately two-thirds of the Gaza Strip; AP describes this as more than half. The precise extent of military control therefore differs by source and measurement point.
The main dispute concerns the sequence. Israel links further steps to the complete disarmament of Hamas. Hamas and the US government say, according to AP, that disarmament, withdrawal, governance and reconstruction should take place simultaneously. As long as the parties cannot agree on that sequence, the second phase remains blocked.
US President Donald Trump presented the plan as a route to ending the war. His administration remains involved in the proposed transition and reconstruction, but AP writes that progress has also stalled within the US approach. A US-backed Board of Peace previously presented an initial recovery plan, while the political and security conditions are absent.
For Gaza’s residents, the failure to reach a political settlement means that the ceasefire has not brought a stable transition to peace. The sources describe continuing attacks, limited reconstruction and Israel’s continued control. Figures on casualties and access to aid in the conflict often come from parties with a direct interest; we do not reproduce those figures here without additional verification.
The development also matters beyond the region. The failure of the follow-up phase puts the credibility of US mediation under pressure and perpetuates a security crisis affecting Israel, the Palestinian territories and international aid efforts. The parties involved contradict one another over responsibility; no independent solution or timetable has been established.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The ceasefire began on 10 October 2025.
- The first phase freed hostages and was intended to lead to further political and security agreements.
- The second phase concerning disarmament, governance, withdrawal and reconstruction has, according to AP and Reuters, stalled.
- Israel and Hamas disagree over the sequence of the subsequent steps.
Left
Arguments A ceasefire without withdrawal, political agency for Palestinians and large-scale aid is not lasting peace. The priority should be the protection of civilians, international oversight and credible Palestinian governance; disarmament cannot serve as a condition for continuing the occupation.
Values Human rights, self-determination, equality and the international rule of law.
Consequences This approach could increase the legitimacy of reconstruction, but it requires strong pressure on both Israel and Hamas and may conflict with Israel’s security conditions.
Centre
Arguments The agreements should be implemented step by step: security, disarmament, withdrawal and governance should reinforce one another. An international transitional force and verifiable guarantees could reduce mutual distrust.
Values Institutional reliability, feasibility and the protection of all population groups.
Consequences A phased compromise may be workable, but risks being delayed again if neither party is willing to accept oversight or concessions.
Right
Arguments Without the complete dismantling of Hamas, Israel remains exposed to new attacks. The armed threat must disappear first; withdrawal, governance and reconstruction can then be arranged safely.
Values National security, deterrence and responsibility for violence by armed groups.
Consequences This sequence may address Israel’s security concerns, but increases the risk that the transition will be postponed indefinitely and the humanitarian situation will worsen.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The text distinguishes between factual agreements, current developments and conflicting positions. The different estimates of territorial control have not been combined into one deceptively precise figure.
- confirmed The ceasefire began on 10 October 2025. — Reported in AP and Reuters coverage. source
- confirmed The first phase led to the release of the remaining hostages and Palestinian prisoners. — Description of the first phase in the Reuters summary. source
- confirmed Israel links further progress to the complete disarmament of Hamas. — AP describes this as Israel’s condition. source
- confirmed The sources differ over the extent of Israel’s control over Gaza. — AP says more than half; Reuters says approximately two-thirds. source
Editor's note
The deadlock over disarmament, governance, withdrawal and reconstruction has been described by AP and Reuters. The sources differ over the extent of Israeli control; this uncertainty has therefore been stated explicitly.Sources
- A US-brokered ceasefire was supposed to end the war in Gaza. A year later, progress has stalled — Associated Press
- One year on, Trump's Gaza plan has not stopped Israeli fire or disarmed Hamas — Reuters, via MarketScreener
More on this in Dutch media
- NRC — „gaza israël”
- NU.nl — „gaza israël”
- De Telegraaf — „gaza israël”