Overview
On December 7, 2025, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel and Hamas were “very shortly” expected to move into the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire, contingent on Hamas returning the remains of the last Israeli hostage, Ran Gvili. Speaking alongside visiting German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in Jerusalem, Netanyahu framed phase two as the disarming of Hamas and the demilitarization of Gaza, tied to the deployment of an International Stabilization Force and the formation of a temporary Palestinian technocratic government overseen by an international ‘Board of Peace’ chaired by U.S. President Donald Trump.
These arrangements implement the first stages of Trump’s 20‑point Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict, endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2803 in November 2025. The plan aims to transform Gaza into a “terror‑free” zone through a phased ceasefire, large‑scale prisoner and remains exchanges, Israeli troop withdrawals, and a UN‑mandated transitional administration. But Hamas has not yet produced all hostage remains, Palestinian public opinion is wary of foreign forces, and Israel’s leadership faces International Criminal Court arrest warrants and domestic pressure. Whether the second phase proceeds, stalls, or collapses will shape not only Gaza’s governance but also the credibility of UN‑backed peace enforcement and any future path to Palestinian statehood.
Key Indicators
People Involved
Organizations Involved
The Israeli government directs the military campaign and negotiations shaping Gaza’s future, balancing international pressure, domestic politics, and security concerns.
Hamas is both a Palestinian Islamist political movement and armed organization designated as a terrorist group by Israel, the U.S., EU, and others. It governed Gaza from 2007 until Israel’s 2023–25 war severely degraded its local rule.
The Board of Peace is a UN Security Council–mandated transitional body tasked with coordinating security, humanitarian relief, and reconstruction in Gaza under a two‑year renewable mandate.
The International Stabilization Force is a UN‑mandated multinational force tasked with securing Gaza, training a new Palestinian police, and overseeing demilitarization.
The UN Security Council is the primary international body responsible for maintaining international peace and security; in November 2025 it codified Trump’s Gaza plan in Resolution 2803.
Timeline
-
Netanyahu: Second Phase of Ceasefire ‘Very Shortly’ Expected
Public StatementDuring a joint press conference with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in Jerusalem, Netanyahu announces that Israel and Hamas are “very shortly” expected to move into the ceasefire’s second phase after Hamas returns the remains of the last hostage, Ran Gvili. He outlines phase two as involving Hamas disarmament, Gaza’s demilitarization, deployment of an International Stabilization Force, and creation of a temporary Palestinian government under an international Board of Peace led by President Trump. Israel threatens to resume operations or curtail aid if it believes Hamas is stalling on remains or disarmament commitments.
-
Qatari Prime Minister Warns Ceasefire Is at a ‘Critical Moment’
Public StatementQatar’s prime minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, warns that the Gaza ceasefire is at a “critical moment,” stressing that the current pause is not a true ceasefire without full Israeli withdrawal and a political track on Palestinian statehood. He notes that phase two’s disarmament and international force will only be sustainable if tied to broader Palestinian rights.
-
UN Security Council Adopts Resolution 2803
International DecisionThe UN Security Council endorses Trump’s Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict in Resolution 2803, authorizing an International Stabilization Force and establishing the Board of Peace as a transitional governing body for Gaza, with a vague but symbolically important reference to a future Palestinian state.
-
‘Trump Declaration for Enduring Peace and Prosperity’
DiplomacyTrump issues a declaration welcoming the initial acceptance of his Gaza plan, outlining a broader vision for regional normalization and economic incentives contingent on Gaza’s deradicalization and reconstruction, which later forms part of the annex to UNSC Resolution 2803.
-
Current Gaza Ceasefire Takes Effect Under Trump Plan
CeasefireA ceasefire comes into effect after Israel and Hamas accept the first phase of Trump’s plan. Hostilities largely cease, front lines are frozen, and structured hostage–prisoner and remains exchanges begin, even as Israeli forces continue lethal operations that kill hundreds of Palestinians during the ‘ceasefire’ period.
-
Hamas Responds to Trump Plan
NegotiationHamas publicly agrees to release remaining hostages and accept a technocratic Palestinian administration for Gaza but does not explicitly commit to full disarmament, setting up later disputes over phase‑two demilitarization.
-
Trump Unveils 20‑Point Comprehensive Plan for Gaza
DiplomacyPresident Donald Trump presents a 20‑point Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict alongside Netanyahu at the White House. The plan conditions an end to the war on Gaza becoming a ‘terror‑free zone,’ immediate release of all hostages, large‑scale prisoner releases, phased Israeli withdrawals, and the creation of an international Board of Peace and stabilization force. Hamas is given a short deadline to accept.
-
January 2025 Gaza War Ceasefire and Exchanges
CeasefireIsrael and Hamas enter a two‑month ceasefire that includes multiple hostage–prisoner exchange rounds and a temporary halt in major combat operations. The deal, initially drafted under President Biden, later informs Trump’s more expansive 20‑point plan.
-
ICC Issues Arrest Warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant
Legal ActionThe International Criminal Court issues arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on charges including the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare and crimes against humanity related to operations in Gaza, further politicizing any future ceasefire and accountability mechanisms.
-
Hamas Attack on Southern Israel Sparks Gaza War
ConflictHamas and allied militants launch unprecedented attacks on communities in southern Israel, killing about 1,200 people and abducting more than 250 others into Gaza. Israel responds with a massive air and ground campaign aimed at destroying Hamas’s military and governance capabilities.
Scenarios
Managed but Partial Implementation of Phase Two
Discussed by: Reuters, Guardian diplomatic reporting, Western and Arab diplomats quoted around UNSC Resolution 2803
Under this scenario, Hamas returns all remaining hostage remains, allowing the formal completion of phase one and triggering the political launch of phase two. An initial contingent of the International Stabilization Force deploys to less contentious areas, while Hamas begins a calibrated decommissioning of heavy weapons under guarantees, retaining some clandestine capacity. Israel withdraws further but maintains a de facto security perimeter and intelligence presence. The Board of Peace and a Palestinian technocrat committee take on limited governance tasks, focusing on aid and early reconstruction. Fighting remains at a low level, but the core ambition of fully disarming Hamas and fundamentally transforming Gaza’s politics is only partially realized, producing a tense, semi‑stabilized status quo rather than a definitive settlement.
Ceasefire Breakdown and Return to Large‑Scale War
Discussed by: Skeptical analysts, unnamed Israeli officials and Palestinian commentators quoted in AP and local coverage
Here, disputes over hostage remains, disarmament inspection, or the composition and mandate of the International Stabilization Force derail implementation. Israel accuses Hamas of bad‑faith stalling or rearming; Hamas accuses Israel of continuing lethal operations during the ceasefire and refusing meaningful withdrawal. Domestic pressures on Netanyahu, including ICC warrants and right‑wing opposition, push him toward resuming major operations. Trump blames Hamas and possibly European allies, threatening funding cuts but refrains from full confrontation with Israel. The ceasefire collapses, fighting resumes at scale, and UN mechanisms such as the Board of Peace and ISF remain largely on paper. Gaza faces further devastation, and the precedent of a UN‑backed enforcement plan failing undercuts future peacekeeping efforts.
Frozen Conflict Under International Supervision
Discussed by: Comparative analyses referencing Kosovo, East Timor and other UN transitional missions; think‑tank and academic commentary cited around Resolution 2803
In this middle‑ground scenario, the ceasefire holds and international mechanisms deploy, but neither side fully gets what it wants. The ISF controls key corridors, crossings, and urban flashpoints, while Israel retains long‑range strike capability and an outer security belt. Hamas formally cedes day‑to‑day governance to technocrats but preserves networks that can mobilize protests or low‑level violence. The Board of Peace effectively becomes an international administrator presiding over a heavily aid‑dependent enclave with contested sovereignty, as debates over a Palestinian state remain unresolved. The situation resembles long‑running international protectorates such as Kosovo or the early years of East Timor: relatively low‑intensity conflict, periodic crises, and slow institution‑building, but no definitive political settlement.
Breakthrough Toward Conditional Palestinian Statehood
Discussed by: Proponents within the Arab bloc at the UN, some European governments including Germany and the UK, and UNSC members citing Resolution 2803’s statehood language
If phase two proceeds relatively smoothly—with credible demilitarization steps, functioning technocratic governance, and demonstrable improvements in humanitarian conditions—Arab and European states could leverage their support to push for the statehood ‘pathway’ embedded in Resolution 2803. Over time, the Board of Peace might hand off authority to a reformed Palestinian Authority or new representative body, and negotiations could extend the model to the West Bank. Israel would face mounting diplomatic pressure and potential conditionality on arms and economic ties. This outcome would mark a historic, though heavily conditioned, step toward a Palestinian state. However, it would require sustained U.S. engagement, Israeli concessions that Netanyahu has publicly opposed, and Palestinian unity and reform that have historically proven elusive.
International Plan Unravels, Local Actors Reassert Control
Discussed by: Critical Palestinian voices quoted in regional media, Hamas statements rejecting ‘guardianship’, and analysts skeptical of long‑term foreign administration
In this scenario, Palestinian public resistance to foreign troops and a Trump‑chaired Board of Peace grows, fueled by perceptions of neo‑colonial control and ongoing hardship. Hamas, other factions, and grassroots networks exploit this sentiment, undermining the legitimacy of the technocratic government and international presence. Arab troop‑contributing countries become wary of casualties and domestic backlash, leading to drawdowns or strict caveats on their forces. Over time, the ISF retracts to a few fortified zones, the Board of Peace becomes largely symbolic, and de facto control reverts to a mix of local armed groups and informal governance structures. The UN framework survives on paper but has limited real authority, echoing other cases where international transitional missions struggled to translate mandates into durable local buy‑in.
Historical Context
UN Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET)
1999–2002What Happened
After a 1999 independence referendum in East Timor triggered violent reprisals, the UN Security Council created the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET), giving it full executive authority over the territory. UNTAET was responsible for security, civil administration, and institution‑building until Timor‑Leste achieved formal independence in 2002.
Outcome
Short term: The UN deployed peacekeepers, restored basic security, and began rebuilding infrastructure and institutions, though significant violence and displacement persisted in the early stages.
Long term: East Timor emerged as an independent state with continuing UN support, but with enduring political fragility, economic dependence, and periodic internal crises.
Why It's Relevant
UNTAET is a key precedent for the Board of Peace and International Stabilization Force in Gaza: an international body with broad administrative powers and a peacekeeping force tasked with rebuilding a war‑ravaged territory. It illustrates both the potential of robust UN mandates to shepherd a transition and the risks of over‑centralized foreign control that struggles to build sustainable local governance.
UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and KFOR
1999–present (diminishing role over time)What Happened
Following NATO’s 1999 intervention in Yugoslavia, UN Security Council Resolution 1244 placed Kosovo under interim UN administration (UNMIK) with a NATO‑led peacekeeping force (KFOR) providing security. The mission oversaw the creation of provisional institutions of self‑government while Kosovo’s final status remained disputed between Serbia and Kosovo Albanians.
Outcome
Short term: Violence decreased substantially under international protection, and parallel Serb and Albanian structures were gradually integrated into provisional institutions, though ethnic tensions remained high.
Long term: Kosovo declared independence in 2008, recognized by many Western states but not by Serbia, Russia, and others. UNMIK’s role shrank, but the territory remains only partially recognized and heavily dependent on international security guarantees.
Why It's Relevant
Kosovo’s international protectorate model parallels the Trump plan’s vision for Gaza: a multinational force under UN authority, a transitional international administration, and an ambiguous trajectory toward self‑determination. The Kosovo experience shows how such arrangements can freeze conflicts, reduce large‑scale violence, and create institutions—but also leave final status questions unresolved for decades.
Gaza Disengagement and Hamas Takeover
2005–2007What Happened
In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew its settlers and ground troops from Gaza but retained control over its borders, airspace, and maritime access. After Palestinian legislative elections in 2006 and a brief unity government, fighting between Fatah and Hamas culminated in Hamas seizing control of Gaza in 2007, leading to a de facto political and territorial split between Gaza and the Fatah‑led Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
Outcome
Short term: Israel’s withdrawal ended its on‑the‑ground occupation but ushered in years of blockade, intermittent wars, and the consolidation of Hamas rule in Gaza.
Long term: The split between Hamas‑ruled Gaza and the West Bank–based Palestinian Authority became a central obstacle to diplomatic efforts and underlies today’s debate over who can legitimately govern Gaza after Hamas’s defeat.
Why It's Relevant
The 2005 disengagement shows that withdrawing Israeli troops without a robust political and security framework can leave a power vacuum that armed factions exploit. The Trump plan’s insistence on an international force and a transitional administration is, in part, an attempt to avoid a repeat of Hamas’s rise—but also raises fears among Palestinians of indefinite foreign control if credible local governance and unity are not achieved.