From a piece titled, "What Comes Next for Israel-Hamas Ceasefire?"

By Mona Yacoubian and Will Todman

Published October 9, 2025

Q2: Did the Trump administration play a decisive role?

A2: The Trump administration played an indispensable role in successfully negotiating the agreement. Even prior to President Trump’s inauguration in January 2025, senior officials from his administration were engaged in discussions that led to a temporary ceasefire and hostage release. In the intervening months, Middle East Envoy Steve Witkoff made several trips to the region—including to Gaza to gain insight into the worsening humanitarian situation—in pursuit of an agreement. The administration’s diplomacy intensified following Israeli strikes on Doha last month that targeted senior Hamas leaders, who were reportedly reviewing a Trump administration ceasefire proposal through Qatari mediation. The attack enraged Qatar, prompting Doha to suspend its mediating role. Angered by the Israeli strikes, President Trump reportedly leveraged Israel’s overreach to compel Prime Minister Netanyahu to agree to a deal.

In the ensuing weeks, President Trump pushed hard on both Hamas and Israel to come to an agreement. The president combined public threats against Hamas, behind-the-scenes pressure on Netanyahu, and incentives to Qatar to resume its mediating role. As part of this effort, President Trump forced Prime Minister Netanyahu’s somewhat public apology to Qatar for the strikes. The administration also leveraged its ties to Arab partners to forge a consensus supporting Trump’s 20-point plan. This unified Arab position added significant pressure on Hamas to sign on to the agreement. President Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner—who maintains strong ties to both Israel and the Gulf—also played a key role in shaping the agreement. He joined the negotiations in the days prior to the October 8 breakthrough, adding a critical voice with close personal ties to the president to the discussions.

Q3: How significant are the remaining challenges?

A3: While yesterday’s agreement marks an important breakthrough, significant challenges remain. Three immediate points of tension revolve around questions of Hamas disarmament, Israeli withdrawal, and a permanent end to hostilities. The agreement aspires to the “demilitarisation of Gaza under the supervision of independent monitors,” but is short on details. Major outstanding questions center around the disarmament of Hamas, where the agreement is quite vague with no clear indications of timelines or benchmarks, let alone exactly how disarmament will be accomplished. Nor does the deal offer insights into how to achieve the destruction of “all military, terror and offensive infrastructure, including tunnels and weapons production facilities.” Hamas’s tunnels pose a particularly thorny challenge. Senior Israeli defense officials estimate that Hamas’s tunnel network in Gaza runs 350–400 miles long, stretching up to 200 feet underground.

Meanwhile, questions also remain regarding phases of Israeli withdrawal, with the agreement stipulating initial withdrawal to an “agreed upon line,” but lacking further clarity on the timing and sequencing of subsequent Israeli withdrawals. The plan also envisions an Israeli buffer zone within Gaza, yet Hamas has indicated its expectation of a full Israeli withdrawal from the territory. Differences on these questions can easily derail the plan and lead to the resumption of hostilities.

Finally, over the long term, governance and security arrangements to govern the “day after” in Gaza remain largely aspirational, with significant gaps in implementation. For example, how will the plan’s envisioned transitional governance structure of Palestinian technocrats be constituted? Nor is there clarity on the oversight and supervision roles of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Trump (as chairman of the “Board of Peace”). The creation of an International Stabilization Force of Arab and global partners also faces high hurdles. Unless there is clear buy-in from Palestinian elements on the ground (to include Hamas, which opposes the idea), it is hard to imagine any Arab forces willing to deploy on the ground. The plan’s vision for an enduring solution to the conflict via “a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood” will likely meet strong Israeli opposition. And with all of these challenges impeding an enduring end to the conflict, Gulf interlocutors will remain unwilling to fund Gaza reconstruction, estimated to cost more than $50 billion.