Vague and indefinite: This is how experts define the ceasefire plan that the United States Government has managed to implement in Gaza by putting pressure on both Hamas and Israel.
Some observers, including the main mediators, claim that this vagueness was deliberate and, in fact, necessary to get both sides to accept any kind of agreement.
On the one hand, there is Hamas, based in Gaza, classified as a terrorist organization by several countries, and, on the other hand, the right-wing government of Israel. Others argue that the ambiguous definitions leave too many details to negotiate, and that a lack of clarity could lead to a resumption of fighting.
“The fact that Israel and Hamas have agreed on a first phase of a ceasefire plan is an important initial step,” Hugh Lovatt, head of research for the Middle East and North Africa program at the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), told DW in a statement. “However,” he added, “it is too early to talk about peace and there are still significant issues and concerns that need to be addressed. The key to a successful ceasefire is that plans can actually be implemented and that both sides live up to their side of the agreement.”
Lovatt noted that issues such as the demilitarization of Gaza, the proposal for an “international stabilization force,” international guarantees and the long-term intentions of the Israeli government are still being discussed.
Will the Israeli Army withdraw completely?
Table of Contents
The peace deal sponsored by US President Donald Trump states that Israel will not control or annex Gaza to its territory, and that Israeli troops must withdraw if Israeli hostages are released. Reports indicate that Israeli troops have partially withdrawn in recent days, and the remaining live hostages were released on Monday (10/13/2025).
The initial military withdrawal reaches what is called the “yellow line,” a boundary within Gaza. Along these lines, the Israeli Army still controls approximately half of the Strip.
Under the peace agreement, the Israeli Army will withdraw further when other conditions are met. The next withdrawal will be to a “red line” once an “international stabilization force” has been deployed. No timeline has been set in the peace deal, so it’s unclear when all of this will happen.
That final withdrawal would involve Israeli troops returning to patrol the security zone between Israel and Gaza that has existed since the beginning of the 21st century. Israel maintains that this zone is necessary for its security and has expanded it for two decades.
Previously, the security zone was 300 meters from the border, but in the January 2025 ceasefire agreement, it was defined as “from a depth of 700 meters to 1,100 meters inside Gaza,” as reported last March by the Israeli non-profit organization Gisha, which advocates for freedom of movement for Palestinians. That represents approximately 17 percent of the Gaza Strip, and would also mean the permanent destruction of communities, as well as the loss of access to agricultural land, according to Gisha.
Who makes up the ‘international stabilization force’?
Point 15 of the peace plan states that the United States will cooperate with Arab and international partners to deploy an “international stabilization force” (ISF) in Gaza. This force would work jointly with Israel and Egypt to secure Gaza’s borders, in addition to training and supporting a new police force.
But experts at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) wrote last week: “Creating an international stabilization force with Arab and global partners also faces major obstacles. Unless there is clear support from Palestinian elements on the ground (including Hamas, which opposes the idea), it is difficult to imagine Arab forces being willing to deploy there.”
A French Foreign Ministry spokesman told reporters that country was willing to contribute to an FIE, and Germany has said it would provide funds to help, but not personnel, to create such a force.
What is the future of Hamas?
Media report that Hamas is already regaining control of security in the Gaza Strip. Hamas fighters are reportedly fighting rival groups inside Gaza, some of which are alleged to have committed crimes such as looting humanitarian aid, and others who have reportedly received support from Israel.
On the plane to Israel, Trump told reporters that his government had given Hamas “approval only for a period of time” to do this in order to avoid further social problems in the devastated territory.
While the peace agreement speaks of the “complete demilitarization of Gaza,” it offers few details on this. Observers have pointed out that there are no specific criteria on what this demilitarization should look like, nor a schedule for it. This gives Israel and Hamas room to delay the process. For example, ECFR’s Lovatt noted that Israel could avoid withdrawing to the red line until there is “complete demilitarization,” but no one really knows what that means.
“Even if the Hamas leadership accepts Israel’s demand [de desarme]many of its fighters would likely refuse to hand over their weapons and may defect to more radical groups,” Lovatt wrote in an analysis earlier this month.
Other observers point out that Hamas is much more than an armed group. It is also a political party with an ideology based on resistance to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, and will likely continue to exist as a political force.
The peace plan refers to the Palestinian state and self-determination. However, neutralizing Hamas’ ideology “will require a greater commitment by Israel to withdraw from Gaza and participate in peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine,” Lovatt said.
Who guarantees compliance with the peace plan?
Most observers agree that since the 20-point plan lacks detail, someone must take responsibility for making it more concrete.
“To appease the right wing of his government and ensure his own political survival, Netanyahu could be tempted to resume the war against Hamas once the hostages are freed,” experts from two think tanks, International Crisis Group and CSIS, wrote in the magazine. Foreign Affairslast week. “To truly break this dynamic, the US will need to apply continued pressure on Israel.”
But, as Emile Hokayem, a senior researcher at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, argued in the British newspaper Financial Times, this week, “the plan could fail if the US gets tired or distracted, or if it lets itself be convinced again by the most radical sectors of Israel.”
(os/cp)
