Why Gaza’s Ceasefire Is Nearing Collapse

The Gaza ceasefire that began on 10 October 2025 is increasingly a ceasefire in name rather than a functioning path to postwar recovery. Its central problem is not simply whether Hamas will disarm or whether Israel will withdraw. It is which side must make the first consequential move, under what verification, and while fighting continues. 3334

The core dispute is over sequencing

The U.S.-backed Board of Peace roadmap links Hamas’s disarmament to Israeli withdrawal, a Palestinian technocratic administration and reconstruction. UN Security Council Resolution 2803 endorsed the wider Comprehensive Plan, including a framework for disarmament, staged Israeli withdrawal and Gaza’s reconstruction. 35

But the parties are presenting incompatible conditions for implementation:

• Israel’s position: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said Israeli forces will not withdraw until Hamas is “genuinely” and completely disarmed. 34
• Hamas’s position: Hamas has said its handover of heavy weapons depends on Israel ending attacks and withdrawing its forces. 34
• The roadmap’s intended mechanism: Reporting on the plan describes a verified, sequenced process in which Hamas weapons are decommissioned and transferred to a Palestinian technocratic committee, followed by Israeli troop withdrawal—not an immediate unilateral surrender by Hamas. 33

That leaves a practical impasse. Israel argues that pulling back before disarmament could leave Hamas able to rebuild military capacity. Hamas, meanwhile, frames disarmament while Israeli forces remain deployed and strikes continue as an unacceptable surrender of leverage and security. The result is that neither side is prepared to take the first irreversible step.

Continued attacks are hollowing out the truce

The ceasefire has also been weakened by repeated military escalations. Gaza’s Hamas-run Health Ministry said that more than 1,300 Palestinians had been killed in Israeli attacks in Gaza since the 10 October truce began, including more than 900 in 2026 alone as of early September. Israel has said it has carried out strikes in response to Hamas violations. 17

Those opposing accounts of responsibility do not resolve the larger problem: recurrent high-casualty attacks make the political and operational environment for disarmament far more difficult. A process requiring weapons collection, verification, civilian handover and international support is unlikely to function amid continuing hostilities.

Nickolay Mladenov, the Board of Peace’s high representative for Gaza, warned that ongoing attacks delay demilitarization and obstruct the transition to civilian government. He also warned that a return to full war would leave Gaza without a viable recovery path. 42

Why the Board of Peace plan depends on a durable halt in fighting

The roadmap is broader than a weapons deal. It is intended to establish a single Palestinian civilian authority, end the role of armed groups in Gaza’s governance and create conditions for recovery. Under the framework described to the UN, only personnel authorized by the National Committee would be permitted to carry arms, while other armed groups would have to cease military activity. 15

That architecture depends on several connected steps working together:

1. A credible cessation of hostilities so that mediators and monitors can operate.
2. Verified decommissioning of weapons rather than an unmonitored declaration of disarmament.
3. A functioning Palestinian transitional administration able to take over civilian and security responsibilities.
4. Israeli withdrawal tied to the agreed process.
5. International support for stabilization and reconstruction. The UN-endorsed framework authorized a mechanism for a temporary International Stabilisation Force. 1235

If fighting continues, every element is put at risk: weapons cannot be reliably collected, civilian institutions cannot credibly assume authority, and potential international contributors face a more dangerous and uncertain mission.

What would keep the ceasefire from collapsing?

A durable arrangement would require the parties and mediators to settle the sequencing dispute in operational terms, rather than through competing political declarations. That means an enforceable pause in strikes, clearly defined lines of deployment, independent verification of phased weapons decommissioning, and concrete protection for the civilian administration meant to govern Gaza.

The key distinction is between complete disarmament as an end state and verified steps toward that end state. The Board of Peace proposal has been presented as a phased process, while Netanyahu has publicly insisted that no withdrawal occur until disarmament is complete. 3334 Unless those positions are reconciled, the ceasefire is likely to remain vulnerable to renewed escalation—and the governance and reconstruction plan built around it may never begin.