Since the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas took effect last month, Israel has violated its terms roughly 500 times in breaches that have killed and wounded hundreds of Palestinians.
More than 1,500 buildings have been demolished in areas inside the so-called “Yellow Line,” the zone Israel continued to occupy after the agreement went into force. Entire neighbourhoods have disappeared within weeks, reduced to rubble through systematic demolition operations, and the true extent of the destruction may be even greater, given the lack of satellite imagery for large portions of the area.
The US-backed 20-point plan underpinning the truce explicitly calls for a halt to all military actions, “including aerial and artillery bombardments.” Many observers view these demolitions as clear violations of the ceasefire, though Israel rejects that characterisation.
The Yellow Line itself is an ambiguous boundary, defined only by the redeployment Israel undertook at the ceasefire’s outset. In recent days, however, it has pushed this line outwards. Soldiers have shot and killed Palestinians who approached it, despite the fact that, on the ground, the boundary is impossible to identify.
Expanding the controlled Yellow Line during a supposed cessation of hostilities directly contradicts the logic of a truce. Moreover, Israel’s recent orders for residents of the Shujaiyya and Tuffah neighbourhoods to evacuate their homes underscore that Israel remains militarily active on the ground, reshaping Gaza geographically and demographically.
Israel has also blocked the level of humanitarian and medical aid guaranteed under the ceasefire. Since 10 October, only about 100 trucks per day have entered Gaza, far short of the 600 stipulated in the agreement. This trickle scarcely sustains a population already subjected to two years of genocidal war, starvation, mass displacement, and the systematic stripping away of basic necessities.
This shortfall is not a minor administrative lapse; it is a fundamental breach. The humanitarian component of the ceasefire is not peripheral but central. The purpose of increasing aid was to stabilise civilian life and reduce the desperation that fuels displacement. By allowing only a fraction of the agreed-upon aid to enter, while keeping the crossings largely closed, Israel is undermining one of the core conditions necessary to maintain the truce.
An Arab diplomatic source in London told Al-Ahram Weekly that Hamas is urging mediators to apply maximum pressure on Israel regarding humanitarian aid, above all other issues.
In his view, Israel is now seeking to push vast numbers of Palestinians out of Gaza by allowing living conditions to deteriorate to a breaking point, fracturing the Strip into isolated enclaves ruled by competing factions and crippling any prospect of a unified national authority.
“Israel fully understands how central the aid issue is to the Palestinians. The factions accepted the Trump plan, despite its flaws, not because the fighters trapped in the tunnels were exhausted, but because nearly two million people, including the fighters’ own families, could no longer endure the unbearable humanitarian collapse. Israel’s manipulation of humanitarian aid reveals an ill-intentioned strategy: to lure Hamas into breaking the ceasefire,” he said.
From the outset, the ceasefire required a cessation of hostilities and the facilitation of humanitarian access while international mediators worked on the sensitive political and security issues slated for phase two. Instead, Israel has carried out near-daily attacks.
Israeli officials insist these actions are responses to “violations” by Hamas, but the scale and frequency of the strikes exceed anything that could reasonably fall within a ceasefire’s bounds. Meanwhile, the US-Israeli Civil-Military Coordination Centre (CMCC), created to oversee the ceasefire, manage humanitarian aid, and support civilian governance, has issued no condemnations and has made no demands that Israel uphold its obligations. Its silence raises uncomfortable questions about its structure and its lack of Palestinian representation.
Against this backdrop, Hamas faces a difficult challenge: negotiating the architecture of phase two while attempting to prevent phase one from collapsing under the weight of Israeli violations.
Over the past several days, including during high-level meetings in Cairo, Hamas leaders have pushed for a monitoring mechanism that binds all the parties, ensuring the ceasefire does not become a one-sided set of constraints imposed on Hamas while Israel operates freely and without consequences.
Hamas has also warned that communication with its fighters in Rafah inside the Yellow Line has been severed. Fighters cut off from their leadership operate on instinct rather than political calculation, and a single misjudged strike could derail the negotiations. Hamas is now asking Egypt and other mediators to help restore communication lines. Parallel talks continue regarding the formation of an independent Palestinian technocratic committee to administer Gaza.
Yet, coordination with the United States is deteriorating. Most notably, a planned meeting in Ankara between US Envoy Steve Witkoff and senior Hamas negotiator Khalil Al-Hayya was cancelled. The meeting was intended to address the most sensitive issues of the ceasefire: the disarmament of Hamas, the mandate of the proposed International Stabilisation Force (ISF) to be deployed in Gaza, and the fate of Hamas fighters trapped inside the Yellow Line in Rafah under Israeli control.
The meeting’s cancellation resulted from Israeli pressure on Washington and Israel’s refusal to entertain any compromise regarding the freezing of Hamas’ weapons.
Hamas maintains that it is prepared to transfer its weapons to a duly constituted Palestinian authority or place them in abeyance until such an authority exists. But it categorically rejects unconditional disarmament, arguing that as a resistance movement under occupation, it retains the right to bear arms absent a credible political horizon.
To date, not a single nation has agreed to deploy forces in Gaza with a mandate to strip Hamas of its arsenal, despite Israeli outreach and sustained pressure on governments across the Arab world, Europe, and Asia. Even states willing in principle to dispatch troops have made clear that any deployment would be limited to safeguarding public order, not forcibly dismantling Hamas’ military capacity.
Meanwhile, Israel is seeking to recruit select Palestinian militias in Gaza including the Yasser Abu Shabab and Hussam Al-Astal factions to confront Hamas and assume the perilous task of disarmament. Yet, few observers believe these groups, even with Israeli backing, possess the manpower or firepower needed for such an undertaking, one that risks triggering large-scale internecine conflict.
Compounding the crisis is the absence of a clear political vision for Gaza’s future. Long-term planning is nearly impossible. Significant financial commitments require stability, and Gaza offers none. No major regional or international donor appears willing to invest tens of billions of dollars under present conditions.
The logic is stark: rebuilding a politically fractured Gaza would entrench, rather than resolve, existing divisions. Donors will not fund infrastructure that could be destroyed within months or that might harden a long-term separation between areas controlled by Hamas and those under Israeli occupation.
Taken together, the picture is unmistakable: the agreement is losing the very foundations required for sustainability. What seemed viable only weeks ago may now be collapsing into a reality incapable of sustaining its own framework.
Palestinian officials and mediators fear that Israel intends to freeze the agreement at its first phase, refusing to move on to the second on the grounds that Hamas has not delivered the remains of all the Israeli hostages. Hamas has signalled that it will not accept such an outcome and is working with mediators to prevent it.
That next phase is far more complex. It involves the deployment of Palestinian police forces to assume security responsibilities, the formation of a technocratic Palestinian government, the launch of reconstruction, and the creation of a Peace Council chaired by US President Donald Trump.
Although Trump has claimed that prominent international figures are eager to participate, no senior foreign officials have expressed willingness to join such a body.
As the Arab diplomat noted, not all Hamas leaders share the same level of confidence in the agreement’s prospects. Some are markedly less optimistic, and internal differences persist over next steps. Still, there is broad consensus on a central point: Israel will not be allowed to keep Gaza in a permanent limbo between war and peace, launching attacks at will without expecting a response.
“There is a shared Palestinian understanding that the agreement will be given several more months to move into its second phase, especially reconstruction and the establishment of governing institutions,” he said.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 27 November, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: