After two long years of intense fighting between Israel and Hamas, a new ceasefire agreement was reached in October 2025, thanks to mediation by the DonaldTrump-led United States and regional actors like Egypt and Qatar.

The main points of this deal include a hostage-for-prisoner exchange: It said that all remaining living hostages held by Hamas were to be released, and Israel would let go of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners. It also inclided an initial withdrawal of Israeli troops from certain areas of Gaza, deployment of an international stabilidation force (ISF) in Gaza, including personnel from Arab, Muslim and Western nations, and a proposed technocratic transitional committee to govern Gaza temporarily, with Hamas agreeing not to have a direct political role.

From a conflict-resolution point of view, several positive signs emerge:

The fact that both sides reached some deal shows that war, while extremely destructive, does create enough pain that parties are willing to talk.

The inclusion of hostages and prisoners is important: it addresses the personal human cost, giving both sides something tangible to deliver.

The presence of international mediators and potentially an international force adds accountability and oversight, which helps build trust.

Humanitarian aid and governance reforms are built in. Too often peace deals handle only the fighting, not the human suffering; this deal includes the aid dimension.


All these are positive factors for conflict resolution: recognising needs, creating incentives, building oversight, and addressing human suffering.

However, some big challenges remain. These could derail the agreement unless carefully managed:

The ceasefire is very fragile already. Since October 10, when the deal began, both sides have accused each other of breaking the truce

Disarmament of Hamas is not clearly agreed. While the plan expects Hamas to decommission its weapons, Hamas has resisted talking explicitly about full disarmament.

Governance of Gaza remains uncertain. Can a committee of technocrats really replace decades of Hamas influence? Many remain sceptical.

Funding and reconstruction are huge tasks. Estimates run into tens of billions of dollars. Donor fatigue and security concerns may make mobilisation of funds very hard.

No detailed timeline is fully agreed for things like full Israeli withdrawal or final status of Palestinian statehood. Vague timelines weaken enforcement.

Deep-seated mistrust between Israelis and Palestinians remains. Years of violence, loss, displacement and trauma do not disappear overnight.


In short, the deal has good structure but there is need for strong follow-up, trust-building, and clear action to move from paper to reality.

Here are some key lessons from this situation that are relevant more broadly when resolving conflicts:

1. When hostages, civilians suffering, displaced people are ignored, peace deals remain shallow.

2. Neutral or semi-neutral actors provide legitimacy and oversight to mediation.

3. Full peace often needs to be broken into steps (ceasefire withdrawal governance reconstruction).

4. You cannot stop fighting and leave a vacuum; what happens next must be addressed.

5. To keep peace, there must be ways to verify compliance and consequences for violations.

6. Trust is not achieved overnight; small steps, transparency, human contact help repair the broken relationship.

This ceasefire in Gaza is more than just a pause in the war. If it succeeds, it may set a precedent for other conflict zones where long-time disputes seem intractable.

But if it fails, the collapse may spark more violence, humanitarian catastrophe, and regional instability. Reports already show border crossings remaining closed, aid being stuck, and new violence breaking out.

The Gaza deal of October 2025 offers a glimmer of hope for ending a brutal conflict. It contains many of the right building-blocks for peace: human-focused measures, phased steps, international involvement, humanitarian relief. Yet the real test will be in what happens next: whether trust can be built, weapons can be managed, governance can shift, and reconstruction can start.

[Arvinder Kaur is a seasoned journalist and editor, focused on India and South Asia. She has also handled media projects for international organisations.]
← Back to Articles