Explainer-One year on, Trump's Gaza plan has not stopped Israeli fire or disarmed Hamas

The year-old plan initiated by US President Donald Trump to end the Gaza war has stalled, evidenced by continued Israeli strikes and ongoing occupation of large portions of the enclave where Palestinians face difficult conditions. An initial phase of the plan resulted in a ceasefire on October 10, 2025, which secured hostage releases and prisoner freedom, but subsequent goals such as disarming Hamas and securing Israeli withdrawal have not been achieved.
While there has been no return to full-scale military operations, Israeli strikes have persisted, resulting in the death of at least 1,400 Palestinians since the ceasefire according to Gaza's health ministry. Israel claims its strikes target Hamas, while Hamas denies this. The plan called for a gradual Israeli withdrawal to a "yellow line," leaving Israel in control of 53% of Gaza; however, effective control has expanded to approximately two-thirds of the territory, leading to increased displacement.
Humanitarian aid flow has seen some improvement, but organizations like the IPC report that over 1.2 million people still face acute hunger in Gaza. Aid distribution figures are contested, with Israel asserting that 600 trucks daily enter Gaza and meet obligations, while aid agencies contend essential items are blocked on the grounds that Hamas may use them militarily. Efforts toward disarming Hamas have faced internal friction; a roadmap was agreed upon between Hamas and the Board of Peace for disarmament overseen by the US-backed government, but Israel rejected the plan until full disarmament occurred.

* A ceasefire occurred on October 10, 2025.
* The initial phase included a suspension of military operations, Israeli withdrawal from part of the enclave, hostage and prisoner releases, and a surge in aid.
* Israeli strikes have continued after the ceasefire.
* At least 1,400 Palestinians have been killed since the October ceasefire, according to Gaza's health ministry.
* Five Israeli soldiers were killed by Palestinian militants or in combat since the ceasefire.
* Israel claims its strikes target Hamas; Hamas denies this.
* Israeli forces have expanded effective control over approximately two-thirds of Gaza since the plan called for a withdrawal to a "yellow line" leaving 53% under Israeli control.
* More than 1.2 million people face acute hunger in Gaza, according to the IPC.
* Only around 227 trucks a day carried humanitarian and commercial supplies into Gaza from the ceasefire to the end of May, which was less than the minimum 600 trucks stipulated in the Gaza plan.
* Aid agencies report that essential items like metal tent poles and engine oil were blocked by Israel under the pretext that Hamas could use them for military purposes.
* Hamas indicated agreement to hand over weapons to a US-backed Palestinian technocratic government as part of a July plan, though they rejected the term "disarmament."
* The International Stabilization Force (ISF) plans involved 20,000 troops and training 12,000 Palestinian police.

The divergence between stated objectives and realized outcomes in the Gaza framework reveals a fundamental tension between political agreements and operational realities. The progression from a phased plan involving withdrawal and disarmament to sustained conflict and continued occupation demonstrates a significant gap between declared intent and on-the-ground consequence. The failure of aid delivery, despite commitments, alongside the ongoing military action, suggests that the political structure outlined by the Board of Peace lacks sufficient enforcement mechanisms when confronted with existing military realities.
The pattern of Israeli control expanding beyond the envisioned withdrawal line challenges the notion of phased territorial negotiation; this implies that security and strategic objectives supersede negotiated spatial boundaries. Furthermore, the stalling of disarmament efforts indicates a deep-seated resistance or distrust regarding the accountability of the proposed governance structure, highlighting a conflict between external mandates (the Trump plan) and internal political agency. The emphasis on "voluntary emigration" by right-wing Israeli politicians juxtaposed against the stated goals of the plan suggests a prioritization of demographic outcomes over negotiated cessation of hostilities, raising questions about whose agency is being prioritized in determining Gaza's future.
The dynamic here involves an interplay between external geopolitical goals and localized material conditions. The failure to secure aid distribution effectively creates a humanitarian crisis that supersedes the framework for peace-building. This suggests that establishing consensus on immediate operational control—disarmament, withdrawal, and resource management—requires a different paradigm than the broad political roadmaps proposed by external actors. What is most pertinent is the mechanism by which accountability is enforced when military actions continue despite stated aims, and whether the definition of "reconstruction" remains subservient to security imperatives.
Bridge Questions: What mechanisms are needed to enforce agreed-upon terms regarding Israeli withdrawal and disarmament? How can humanitarian imperatives be decoupled from ongoing political negotiations to ensure effective aid delivery? If external frameworks consistently fail to mandate localized operational changes, what internal shifts in agency are required for Palestinian entities to successfully advance their own stabilization goals?