Months of diplomacy aimed at turning a tentative ceasefire in Gaza into a lasting peace have made little headway. Last Sunday a Hamas delegation flew to Cairo to meet Egyptian mediators, but discussions are focused on unresolved questions from the first phase of the pause agreed more than six months ago and on whether a second — and final — phase can be achieved.
Hamas, designated a terrorist group by Germany, the EU, the US and others, launched the attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023 that sparked the devastating conflict. A fragile ceasefire has been in place since October 10, 2025, yet it has repeatedly frayed because of sporadic violence. The Norwegian Refugee Council warned on April 10 that six months into the truce civilians in Gaza remain ‘‘trapped amid attacks on civilians, restricted aid and an uncertain political process’’ that will determine whether recovery begins or collapses.
The high-profile Board of Peace initiative, unveiled by US President Donald Trump in January with sweeping aims, has so far had little concrete effect. Structures and funding pledges exist on paper, but much of the promised money has not materialized. ‘‘At the moment, everything seems to be going round and round in circles,’’ said Peter Lintl of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs. Fundamental questions — how Hamas would be disarmed, who would run Gaza during a transition, and when Israeli forces would withdraw — remain unresolved, and there are no robust mechanisms in place to enforce any deal.
Observers describe the negotiations as a diplomatic stalemate marked more by mistrust than rapprochement. Simon Wolfgang Fuchs, associate professor of Islamic and Middle Eastern studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, says talks have stalled and deadlines have come and gone with little to show.
Disarmament is the central sticking point. Israel insists on Hamas’s demilitarization before withdrawing, while Hamas and its backers demand the reverse. In late January US Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz proposed independent international monitors to oversee a demilitarization process, but such schemes would demand major concessions from both sides. ‘‘For Israel, the order is clear: disarmament first, then withdrawal. Whereas for Hamas, it is exactly the opposite,’’ Fuchs notes. Despite two years of Israel’s offensive — including targeted strikes on Hamas commanders — Hamas still controls parts of Gaza and functions as the de facto authority. The offensive has been deadly: estimates cited in reporting put Palestinian fatalities at around 72,000.
Humanitarian conditions in much of Gaza remain dire and in some places have worsened. Civilians face shortages of essentials, soaring prices and badly damaged infrastructure. Even when aid convoys arrive, uncertainty and fear persist; memories of acute shortages and the famine of 2025 continue to shape daily life. Human rights groups report that criticism of Hamas is harshly suppressed in areas it controls, and many Palestinians live with the anxiety of potential permanent displacement.
Security dynamics are fragile. Targeted strikes on Hamas leaders have repeatedly put civilians at risk. An Oxfam analysis published on April 10 concluded that the Trump plan for Gaza is ‘‘on the verge of failure,’’ noting that key elements have not been implemented and the proposed technocratic body for civilian administration has yet to be established.
Reconstruction prospects are clouded by regional instability. Gulf states that pledged major support for rebuilding Gaza are under fiscal and logistical pressure from a wider war with Iran: missile and drone strikes have damaged refineries, oil fields and export terminals, and repairs could take months or years, reducing the resources available for Gaza. Reuters columnist Ron Bousso has argued that resources for reconstruction are likely to be scarce as a result.
Analysts warn that a near-term political breakthrough is unlikely. While the ceasefire has eased some daily hardships, there is no viable political settlement in place, and the risk of renewed escalation remains ever present. Without agreed sequencing on disarmament, a credible interim administration and enforceable international guarantees, the current lull risks becoming another fragile pause rather than the basis for lasting recovery.