The Compliance Trap: Inside the Unraveling Gaza Ceasefire and the Threat of Renewed War

Seven months after the guns fell largely silent in Gaza, the ceasefire that was supposed to end one of the deadliest chapters in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is fraying at every seam. A senior advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned that Israel "will take action" if Hamas does not comply with the terms of the October 2025 peace agreement — a statement that carries the weight of renewed military operations in a territory where 2.1 million people remain trapped amid devastation [1].

The advisor, Michael Eisenberg, told Fox News that "all the options are on the table since Hamas is noncompliant with the 20-point plan, and they haven't delivered their weapons like they were supposed to" [1]. He framed the situation in stark terms: "There's an easy way and a hard way. Everyone prefers the easy way, which is Hamas delivers the weapons, but if they don't, there's a hard way too" [1].

But the question of who is actually out of compliance — and what compliance even means when both parties accuse each other of violations — is far more contested than either side's rhetoric suggests.

The 20-Point Plan and Its Discontents

The Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict was announced by President Donald Trump on September 29, 2025, and signed on October 9, coming into effect the following day [2]. The deal secured the release of all remaining Israeli hostages in exchange for approximately 2,000 Palestinian prisoners, including 250 serving life sentences [3]. It also mandated a ceasefire, a surge in humanitarian aid, and a phased Israeli military withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

The plan's longer-term provisions — which have proven far more contentious — include the complete disarmament of Hamas and other armed groups, the establishment of a transitional Palestinian technocratic government, Israeli withdrawal to pre-war lines, and the deployment of an International Stabilization Force [2][4].

Phase II of the plan was announced by U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff on January 14, 2026 [2]. But the ambitious timeline has collided with realities on the ground. Six months after the ceasefire announcement, J Street's assessment found that the 20-point plan "has largely stalled on all its promises beyond the initial pause in fighting, hostage exchange, and surge in humanitarian aid" [5].

What Has Hamas Actually Violated?

Israeli and U.S. officials point to several categories of alleged Hamas violations. The Israel Defense Forces documented 139 total ceasefire violations from October 2025 through early April 2026, with 22 violations between February 28 and April 6, 14 between April 8 and 16, and 19 between April 21 and May 5 [6][7]. The IDF has alleged that Hamas used ambulances, hospitals, and schools to reassert control over northern Gaza in violation of the deal [8].

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies' Long War Journal reported that violations included Hamas fighters crossing agreed withdrawal lines, exchanges of fire near Israeli positions, and attempts to rebuild military infrastructure [6][7]. Two Israeli soldiers were killed in Rafah when Hamas allegedly fired anti-tank missiles at Israeli troops [9].

Beyond military violations, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights documented 80 reported killings of Palestinians by Hamas since the ceasefire, including summary executions and clashes with rival factions [6]. Hamas has also refused the Board of Peace's mandate for complete disarmament, which Israeli and U.S. officials consider a core compliance benchmark [10].

Independent verification remains limited. No neutral ceasefire monitoring body with full ground access has been established, and the International Stabilization Force envisioned in the agreement has not been deployed. The UN Security Council briefing on April 28, 2026 described the ceasefire as "increasingly fragile" but attributed violations to both Israeli strikes and armed activities by Hamas and other groups [11].

Source: IDF, Gaza Media Office, FDD Long War Journal

Data as of May 5, 2026CSV

What 'Take Action' Means

Eisenberg's warning is not abstract. A senior Netanyahu aide stated in February 2026 that Hamas would be given 60 days to disarm, after which the IDF would "complete" its military mission in Gaza [12]. Hamas rejected the ultimatum immediately [13].

Israeli military officials have been more explicit. A senior official told Channel 15 in early May that an additional round of fighting was "almost inevitable" [14]. Netanyahu canceled a scheduled security cabinet meeting in favor of smaller consultations — a move analysts interpreted as preparation for renewed conflict [14].

On the ground, the military posture tells its own story. Rather than withdrawing further as the agreement envisions, Israel has expanded its territorial control. By gradually pushing the established "Yellow Line" westward, the IDF now controls approximately 59% of the Gaza Strip, up from 54% in earlier months [14][5]. Israel has constructed seven new outposts and fortifications along the ceasefire line [5]. According to The Boston Globe, Israel has told the Board of Peace's High Representative for Gaza, Nikolay Mladenov, that it will not withdraw from its current positions [15].

Netanyahu himself has stated that "the next phase of Gaza ceasefire is disarming Hamas, not reconstruction," and that Israel will maintain "security control" over the territory [16].

The Humanitarian Stakes

The human cost of the ceasefire period itself has been substantial. According to local medical sources cited by Al Jazeera, 828 Palestinians have died since the ceasefire began [14]. The OCHA humanitarian situation report from April 23, 2026 documented 786 fatalities and 2,217 injuries since October 10, 2025 [17]. In the first 44 days alone, the Gaza Government Media Office counted 342 Palestinians killed across 497 alleged Israeli ceasefire violations [18].

The broader humanitarian picture is severe. Nearly 90% of water and sanitation infrastructure in Gaza has been destroyed or damaged [17]. Approximately 80% of the population relies on water trucking for drinking water [17]. Some 77% of Gazans face acute food insecurity, and 1.7 million people shelter in refugee tent camps [5].

Aid delivery, which surged initially after the ceasefire, has declined sharply. UN and partner aid inflows dropped 37% between the first and second three-month periods following the agreement, falling from over 167,600 metric tons to less than 105,000 metric tons [17]. Palestinian resistance groups have accused Israel of blocking the agreed 600 daily aid trucks [14]. Only 400 patients have been allowed medical evacuation since February [5].

Just over 10% of the funding required for critical humanitarian operations in 2026 has been secured [17]. Of the $17 billion pledged for reconstruction, almost none has been disbursed — donors have conditioned releases on Hamas disarming and Israeli withdrawal, creating a catch-22 [5].

If major military operations resume, the consequences for Gaza's civilian population would compound an already dire situation. Two years of hostilities caused development to regress by an estimated 77 years [17]. Only 0.5% of rubble from the war has been cleared [5].

The Board of Peace: Structure, Authority, and Credibility

Trump's Board of Peace is the primary institutional mechanism for overseeing the ceasefire's implementation. Chaired by Trump himself — who holds sole authority to invite members, modify the charter, and approve all directives — the board currently has 27 member states, including Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Bahrain, and several non-regional countries such as Hungary, El Salvador, and Argentina [19][20].

The Executive Board, announced January 17, 2026, includes Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, and former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair [19]. Nikolay Mladenov serves as High Representative for Gaza, overseeing the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG), a transitional technocratic body headed by former Palestinian Authority official Ali Shaath [20].

The board's credibility as a neutral arbiter has been questioned from the start. A Times of Israel report revealed that the Board of Peace "did not intend to hold Israel to the terms of the ceasefire if Hamas does not accept the panel's proposed disarmament framework" [21]. This asymmetric enforcement stance — demanding Hamas compliance while not equally binding Israel — has drawn criticism from European and Arab observers.

Several countries declined to join. The board's composition tilts toward U.S. allies, and a proposal appeared to relegate a parallel panel including Turkey and Qatar to an "advisory" role [22]. The EU has maintained a distinct position, calling for "the full implementation by all parties of the ceasefire and all other provisions of UNSCR 2803," including Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and unimpeded humanitarian access [23].

The contrast with prior ceasefire mediation is stark. The 2012, 2014, and 2021 ceasefires were brokered by Egypt, Qatar, and the UN — parties that, while not neutral, were at least perceived as having some independence from the combatants. The Board of Peace, chaired by the president of Israel's closest ally, faces structural questions about its capacity to hold both sides accountable [24].

Hamas's Counter-Arguments

Hamas's position, while rejected by Israel and the U.S., rests on specific claims about Israeli non-compliance. The group argues that Israel must first fully implement Phase I of the agreement before disarmament discussions can proceed [3][25]. Phase I required Israeli withdrawal to pre-designated lines, increased humanitarian aid to agreed levels, and the completion of the hostage-prisoner exchange.

Hamas contends that Israel has violated the ceasefire in several concrete ways: expanding rather than withdrawing its territorial control, blocking agreed aid deliveries, withholding Palestinian Authority revenue, and constructing new military fortifications inside Gaza [5][14][25]. A Hamas spokesperson stated in May 2026 that "Israel adheres to no obligations" and that "ceasefire talks are at a standstill over broken commitments" [25].

Palestinian armed factions — Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine — have uniformly rejected disarmament conditions that are not linked to a political horizon. Abdul Jabbar Said of Hamas's political bureau explained that "disarmament is tied to the ambition of establishing a Palestinian state and a complete end to the occupation" [14].

The demand to "become Swedish," as Eisenberg put it — disarming without any guarantee of sovereignty or statehood — is a non-starter for groups that view armed resistance as their primary source of bargaining power [1]. Whether this position is strategically rational or morally defensible is debated, but it is internally consistent: Hamas argues it cannot disarm while Israel continues to control its territory and restrict its population's movement, trade, and governance.

Historical Echoes: Why Gaza Ceasefires Collapse

The current standoff follows a pattern documented across at least six prior ceasefire agreements between Israel and Hamas since 2008. Research compiled by Palestine Nexus and the Institute for Middle East Understanding shows that each ceasefire followed a similar trajectory of initial compliance, gradual erosion, and eventual collapse [24][26].

The 2012 ceasefire, for example, saw zero rockets and only two mortar shells fired from Gaza in its first three months, while Israel attacked Palestinians in Gaza dozens of times, killing four and injuring 91 [26]. Over the following two years, Israel violated the ceasefire twice as frequently as Hamas, according to compiled data [26].

The 2014 ceasefire ended a 50-day war that killed 2,205 Palestinians and 71 Israelis. The 2021 ceasefire, brokered by Egypt, Qatar, and the UN after 11 days of fighting, held for roughly two years before the October 7, 2023 attack shattered any pretense of stability [24].

The current agreement differs from its predecessors in scale and ambition. It is the first to include a formal disarmament requirement, the first backed by a standing international body (the Board of Peace), and the first endorsed by a UN Security Council resolution (UNSCR 2803). But it also faces unprecedented challenges: the war it seeks to end was by far the most destructive in the conflict's history, and the mutual distrust it generated runs deeper than in any prior period.

Source: Multiple Sources

Data as of May 10, 2026CSV

The International Split

International reactions to the compliance question reveal a significant divide. The United States has broadly backed Israel's framing, with Vice President Vance stating that "both sides are transitioning from two years of very intense warfare to now a peacetime posture" [9]. The U.S. position treats Hamas disarmament as the primary benchmark for progress.

The EU has taken a more balanced stance, calling on "all parties" to implement the ceasefire fully, including demands for Israeli withdrawal and unimpeded humanitarian access that the U.S. has been less vocal about [23]. The European Union Institute for Security Studies has raised questions about the "cost of being inside the room" for European nations that joined the Board of Peace [27].

In a historic shift, the entire Arab League condemned the October 7 attack for the first time and urged Hamas to disarm at a conference on reviving the two-state solution. Seventeen countries, plus the 22-member Arab League and the EU, endorsed a declaration calling for Hamas to release hostages, disarm, and end its rule of Gaza [28]. This represented a significant departure from prior Arab League positions, which had traditionally avoided direct criticism of Palestinian armed groups.

However, the Arab League declaration also called for a Palestinian state — a demand that Israel's current government has firmly rejected. The gap between international consensus on the end state (two states) and the current trajectory (Israeli expansion of control in Gaza) remains wide.

The UN Security Council has documented violations by both sides without assigning primary blame, describing the situation as one where the ceasefire is "increasingly fragile" due to actions by all parties [11].

Netanyahu's Domestic Calculus

The compliance framing cannot be separated from Israeli domestic politics. Netanyahu faces pressure from multiple directions. Far-right coalition partners Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich — whose parties control 13 of 120 Knesset seats — have openly opposed any arrangement that leaves Hamas intact [29]. Ben-Gvir has stated that Netanyahu "has no mandate to end the war without the complete defeat of Hamas" [29].

Smotrich has been more revealing about the coalition's internal dynamics, explaining that while they oppose the ceasefire, they "decided to stay in order to fix this folly and to return to fighting. We've created assurances in the cabinet that the war won't end, under no terms, without first achieving its aims" [29].

From the other direction, a potential Bennett-Lapid alliance has emerged as a challenge to Netanyahu's hold on power, with elections anticipated in October 2026 [30]. Chatham House assessed that Israeli elections will function as "a referendum on the legacy of 7 October and the future of the social contract" [31].

Analysts cited by Al Jazeera suggest that the threat of renewed operations serves multiple purposes: extracting concessions from mediators, reinforcing Netanyahu's security credentials before elections, and distracting from Israeli military strain — with reservists averaging 80 service days annually in 2026 while managing simultaneous crises in southern Lebanon [14].

The compliance narrative offers Netanyahu a framework that satisfies his coalition: it places the onus on Hamas, positions Israel as the party seeking peace, and preserves the option to resume military operations — all while deflecting attention from Israel's own unfulfilled obligations under the agreement.

What Comes Next

The ceasefire's trajectory points toward one of three outcomes. The first — and least likely at present — is that Hamas accepts some version of disarmament in exchange for political guarantees, and Israel withdraws as agreed. The second is a prolonged stalemate in which both sides accuse each other of violations while the humanitarian situation deteriorates and reconstruction remains frozen. The third is the resumption of large-scale military operations, with consequences that multiple UN reports suggest would be catastrophic for Gaza's remaining civilian population.

The Board of Peace's ability to prevent the third scenario depends on whether it can hold both parties to account — a capacity that its structural alignment with the U.S. and Israel, and its stated unwillingness to enforce terms against Israel if Hamas rejects disarmament, calls into question [21].

What is clear is that the language of compliance has become a weapon in its own right. Both sides invoke it to justify their positions while selectively ignoring their own failures to meet the agreement's terms. Until an independent mechanism exists to adjudicate these competing claims — or until the political incentives on both sides shift — the Gaza ceasefire will remain what it has been since its inception: a fragile arrangement sustained not by trust or enforcement, but by the mutual exhaustion of parties who have not yet found a reason to stop fighting that outweighs their reasons to resume.