Israeli airstrikes that killed at least 18 Palestinians in a single day have laid bare how quickly the US‑brokered ceasefire in Gaza can unravel when core issues—disarmament, withdrawal, and verification—remain unresolved. Despite the publication of a 15‑point roadmap by President Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace” to operationalise the peace plan, daily violations and mutual preconditions are eroding the truce’s credibility and raising the risk of a broader collapse.
A deadly day of strikes under a faltering ceasefire
On Sunday, Israeli warplanes struck multiple locations across the Gaza Strip for a second consecutive day, hitting residential buildings, tents sheltering displaced families, vehicles and gatherings from northern Gaza City through Deir Al‑Balah to Khan Younis. Palestinian medics and civil defence officials reported at least 18 fatalities, including several children and women, and at least one unborn baby among the dead.
In Deir Al‑Balah, at least four people were killed in one strike; later accounts said a Hamas commander and his wife died in an apartment hit. In the Khan Younis/Mawasi area, a couple and their 9‑year‑old son were killed in a house strike, while another couple and their child died in an apartment attack; in a separate incident, five people were wounded and tents set ablaze. Gaza City saw two killed in a tent strike near the Egyptian representative mission, two more in eastern Zeitoun, and at least three in a car strike near Saraya Square, with an additional fatality near Jabalia in the north.
The Israeli military said some strikes targeted Hamas “Nukhba” commanders and other “military operatives,” and that it was reviewing other incidents. Yet the cumulative toll since the October 2025 ceasefire has become a political flashpoint: Gaza health authorities say at least 1,230 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli strikes since the truce began, while Israel reports four soldiers killed over the same period. The United Nation has repeatedly condemned intensifying attacks, with UN rights office spokesperson Thameen Al‑Kheetan noting that
“Nine months after the announcement of a ceasefire, still, nowhere is safe for Palestinians in Gaza,”
and reporting that at least 57 Palestinians, including six children, were killed in a single week in mid‑July.
The 15‑point roadmap and the disarmament bottleneck
At the heart of the current crisis is the US‑led Board of Peace’s 15‑point “Roadmap for Implementing U.S. President Donald Trump’s Comprehensive Peace Plan in Gaza,” released to turn political commitments into sequenced steps on the ground. The plan calls for Israel to “fully complete, without delay” remaining commitments under the Sharm el‑Sheikh protocol, especially the cessation of military operations, while Hamas and Palestinian factions are to complete the cessation of military operations and move toward decommissioning weapons.
A U.S.-backed Palestinian technocratic body—the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG)—is to enter Gaza and assume security and administrative responsibilities in a
“gradual, sequential and time‑bound manner,”
with phased Israeli withdrawal explicitly “linked” to the NCAG’s assumption of responsibilities and verified security progress. Later phases envision deployment of an International Stabilization Force and tie reconstruction to verified stability. Nickolay Mladenov, the Board’s lead envoy for Gaza, said the strikes occurred despite ongoing mediation and called for de‑escalation to
“create the space for the full implementation of the President’s plan,”
adding that
“The path out of the current situation runs through the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan and it must be implemented in full and by all parties.”
Yet the roadmap’s sequencing is precisely where the deadlock has hardened. Israel insists disarmament must precede meaningful withdrawal; Hamas insists withdrawal and an end to attacks must precede disarmament. Hamas has told mediators it
“will not engage in discussions about disarmament unless it receives assurances that Israel will fully withdraw from Gaza,”
and has demanded an end to Israeli violations, enforcement of all provisions, and reopening of crossings before moving to phase two. Israel, for its part, has stated it will not consent to a withdrawal from Gaza unless Hamas is fully disarmed beforehand.
Israeli strikes and the “nothing before disarmament” line
Israeli officials argue that any redeployment before verified disarmament would allow Hamas to reconstitute its military capacity and plan another Oct 7‑style attack. Energy Minister Eli Cohen, a member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s security cabinet, said there was
“no deal to halt attacks on Gaza”
and that if Hamas does not disarm, Israel should take full control of the enclave, noting that Israel already controls around 70% according to his remarks.
Cohen stressed:
“In the deal we signed with the United States, our stance is that Hamas must be dismantled. This is the first thing that must happen.”
A Netanyahu office spokesperson, Doron Spielman, told Reuters and AP that Israel had expressed “serious security concerns” to the US, insisting
“nothing can happen before Hamas completely and truly disarms.”
Israeli intelligence assessments cited in reporting indicate Hamas is still rearming and rebuilding capabilities, and officials warn that premature withdrawal would enable Hamas to “expand its presence throughout Gaza” and threaten civilians and border communities again.
Hamas’s stance: cease attacks and withdraw before handing over weapons
Hamas, for its part, says it has shown “considerable flexibility” on disarmament but insists Israel must stop attacks and pull troops back in line with the ceasefire terms before it hands over weapons to the new Palestinian body. Senior Hamas official Basem Naim accused Israel of using escalation to “impose facts on the ground by force” and undermine efforts to end the war.
The group has proposed an alternative three‑year timeline, beginning with the collection of heavy weapons while retaining light arms for self‑defence during a transitional period, and insists that any transfer of materiel be handled by a neutral party, with additional guarantees to preserve the weaponry against future Israeli attacks. Other Palestinian factions have echoed that all military operations must cease under the Sharm el‑Sheikh protocol as a precondition for moving forward with disarmament steps.
Humanitarian and political costs of the stalemate
The human cost is mounting. With more than 1,230 Palestinians killed since the October ceasefire and repeated strikes on tents and homes, the truce has failed to deliver basic security for civilians. The United Nation has warned of “intolerable” suffering and called for a renewed ceasefire, unimpeded humanitarian access and the unconditional release of hostages, while UNRWA reported a “significant escalation in hostilities” in the humanitarian “green zone” west of the Israeli “yellow line.”middleeastmonitor+1
Reconstruction remains stalled because donors and implementers tie large‑scale projects to verified stability and security guarantees under the roadmap. Politically, the deadlock empowers hardliners on both sides: Israeli ministers argue for fuller control of Gaza if disarmament stalls, while Hamas hardliners cite violations to justify retaining weapons. The space for moderate Palestinian technocrats in the NCAG to operate narrows as violence continues, undermining the very governance alternative the plan envisages.
Analysis: why the truce is fraying and what could steady it
This analysis points to a classic security dilemma encoded into the plan’s sequencing. Israel insists disarmament must precede meaningful withdrawal; Hamas insists withdrawal and an end to attacks must precede disarmament. The roadmap tries to bridge this with “gradual, sequential” steps and verification, but daily violations—Israeli strikes killing civilians and alleged targeting of militants, and Hamas or allied fire in some episodes—have eroded trust and made each side more rigid.
Reporting indicates that in recent months Israel has bombed Gaza on 36 of the past 40 days while the wider regional war raged, killing scores and permitting only a fraction of medical evacuations and aid trucks, deepening the perception that the ceasefire exists more on paper than on the ground. For Hamas, continued strikes while it is asked to disarm look like coercion; for Israel, any pause before verified disarmament looks like a window for rearmament.
Three plausible paths emerge. First, a recalibrated implementation: the US and mediators broker a short, verifiable “de‑escalation window” with reduced Israeli operations and a limited, monitored handover of heavy weapons to a neutral body, creating a proof‑of‑concept for the roadmap. Second, a frozen truce: low‑intensity strikes and skirmishes continue, the roadmap stalls, and Gaza remains a patchwork of control with sporadic escalation. Third, collapse: a major incident triggers wider fighting, forcing a renegotiation of the ceasefire terms or a new, more coercive enforcement mechanism.
Which path materialises will depend on whether the US and regional partners can enforce reciprocal restraint, whether Israel accepts a limited, monitored disarmament pilot before full withdrawal, and whether Hamas is willing to begin handing over heavy weapons under international supervision while retaining political leverage.
