Content warning: violence, death
A ceasefire between Israel and Hamas took effect on Friday, October 10, the first step of a US-brokered plan that ties phased Israeli withdrawals and a major prisoner/ hostage exchange to a sharp increase in humanitarian access. While the deal has paused full-scale warfare, it has not ended violence. Strikes, shootings, and movement restrictions continue to occur, particularly around a newly demarcated “yellow line” inside Gaza. This is a boundary, now being physically drawn on the ground, used to mark areas from which Israeli forces have partially withdrawn but still maintain control nearby. Phase one refers to the initial stage focused on halting large- scale fighting, releasing hostages, and enabling limited humanitarian relief.
The ceasefire agreement is structured in three phases: Phase One pauses large-scale hostilities, facilitates hostage releases, and allows limited humanitarian access; Phase Two envisions wider Israeli withdrawals and the deployment of an International Stabilization Force; and Phase Three outlines a transition toward a longer-term governance and security arrangement. Before the ceasefire, Israeli airstrikes and ground operations were killing hundreds per day, with entire neighbourhoods in Gaza City, Jabalia, and Khan Younis flattened and aid almost completely halted.
What the ceasefire says
The text released by the Times of Israel — the version approved by Israel’s cabinet — sets out the core commitments of the ceasefire. The agreement was conveyed to Hamas through Qatari, Egyptian, and US mediators, who announced Hamas’ acceptance. Israel was required to withdraw to mapped lines inside Gaza within 24 hours of cabinet approval. Within 72 hours of that withdrawal, Hamas would release all living hostages, return the remains of deceased hostages it holds, and share information on those it could not immediately recover. Both sides also agreed to facilitate an information-sharing mechanism via the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The annexes reference “humanitarian aid and relief implementation steps” and attach maps of the withdrawal lines. Israel staged its initial pullback on October 10; Hamas released a second batch of living hostages on October 13 as the first exchanges began.
The withdrawal lines marks a boundary from which Israeli forces have partially withdrawn under the ceasefire’s first phase while maintaining control over nearby zones and all border crossings. Al Jazeera’s explainer, which includes the map presented by US officials, estimates that nearly 60 per cent of the Gaza Strip remained under Israeli control during this initial phase. Future phases envision further Israeli pullbacks, the deployment of an International Stabilization Force (ISF), and a transition arrangement, though the mandate and authority of the proposed force are still being negotiated.
How the truce is unfolding
The ceasefire has been repeatedly stress-tested by violence. At the end of October, Israel launched air and tank strikes in Eastern Gaza, citing Hamas violations and a deadly incident involving an Israeli soldier; those strikes killed more than 100 people, according to Gaza health authorities, before the truce was restored. US officials, speaking anonymously, have pressed both sides to prevent the collapse of the deal and have warned that an overly harsh Israeli response or repeated Hamas violations could unravel the truce.
Independent monitors and media reports have tracked a steady pattern of violations despite the truce. By mid-October, local authorities in Gaza had recorded at least 47 Israeli ceasefire breaches, including airstrikes, demolitions, and shootings, that killed more than three dozen people, according to reporting from The Guardian.
Across the Gaza Strip, skirmishes and lethal incidents cluster around the “yellow line”; Israeli forces still conduct targeted strikes and demolitions near their positions; while Hamas and other fighters test the boundary with probing attacks, leaving civilians caught in the middle. UNOCHA’s updates describe “daily detonations of residential buildings” in areas where the Israeli military remains deployed, with casualties reported in Gaza City, Deir al-Balah, and Khan Younis. The agency also notes the installation of yellow-painted concrete blocks to mark the line as ordered by Israel’s defence minister. Meanwhile, despite some humanitarian improvements, UNOCHA’s Gaza Humanitarian Response (Situation Report No. 24), notes that although relief partners delivered more than 1.3 million meals on 15 November alone, critical needs such as adequate shelter, clearance of explosive remnants, and access to damaged cropland remain severely under-addressed.
International coverage corroborates this yellow demarcation’s emergence and the confusion around it. France 24 describes the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) beginning to physically mark the line “behind which it must withdraw,” even as many displaced residents cannot safely return to homes east of it.
Hostages and prisoner releases
The hostage/prisoner track serves as both the humanitarian core of the ceasefire and its political trigger point. According to UNOCHA’s Humanitarian Situation Update #331 on 13 October the ICRC facilitated the return of 20 Israeli hostages, 1,809 Palestinian detainees, and four deceased Israeli hostages to Israeli authorities. Gaza Humanitarian Response (situation report No. 9 from October 30) notes that the bodies of two more deceased Israeli hostages were handed over, and that the remains of another 11 hostages were then believed to still be in the Gaza Strip. By November 5, however, Situation report No. 14 records that Gaza’s Ministry of Health received 15 additional bodies of deceased Palestinian detainees, bringing the total since the start of the ceasefire to 285, of which only 84 had been identified, and that the remains of six Israeli hostages were still thought to be in Gaza. Disputes over remains and sequencing of exchanges have repeatedly spiked tensions and prompted Israeli reprisals, yet each successful turnover has also helped restore momentum to the deal.
Humanitarian aid
Humanitarian access has improved relative to the pre-ceasefire period, but still falls far short of need. According to UNOCHA’s latest updates (Gaza Humanitarian Response (Situation Report No. 26, from November 20), crossings remain limited, shelter materials remain scarce and large-scale debris clearance and explosive- remnant work are still unmet. Aid partners have delivered tens of thousands of tons of food and other supplies, but significant delivery bottlenecks persist. Reuters reported on November 21 that the World Food Programme has brought in 40,000 tons of food aid, reaching only about 30 per cent of the people in need, and that heavy rain has already damaged stored food as winter approaches.
Earlier UNOCHA updates show the depth of the gap: as of November 6, only 4 per cent of Gaza’s cropland was undamaged and accessible, and aid was entering through just two crossings (Kerem Shalom/Karem Abu Salem and Kissufim). Between October 10 and November 3, UN partners collected over 32,500 metric tons of aid at Gaza’s crossings, yet bureaucratic rejections, convoy impediments, and limited warehouse capacity throttle delivery. UNOCHA also reported 107 relief-item requests rejected during this period, severe damage to water and sanitation systems, including seven wastewater plants out of service; as well as continuing restrictions on essential items such as generators and spare parts. Across the strip, safe access to shelter, water and sanitation, debris-clearance and damaged cropland remains severely under- addressed. Without heavy machinery to clear rubble and explosive remnants of war, many communities remain unable to return or begin rebuilding.
What lies ahead and what will shape the outcome
Key challenges now center on three interconnected issues. One, boundary management: whether both parties will implement a clear, monitored ceasefire zone with visible markers and safe civilian corridors or allow the so-called “yellow line” to persist as a shifting, opaque no-go zone; human-rights groups such as Refugees International and Medical Aid for Palestinians warn such ambiguity risks transforming a temporary security line into a de facto border. Two, humanitarian access: the majority of reconstruction, aid delivery and movement of civilians hinges on unfettered access, bottlenecks and denial of service continue to erode trust in the truce. Three, international oversight: the November 17 UNSC resolution authorizing the ISF and a transitional Gaza governance apparatus raised the stakes for the next phase of the deal, but without credible deployment and accepted engagement rules the architecture remains fragile. Meanwhile, reporting from Gaza shows dozens of Israeli strikes and incursions since October 10, underscoring how contested the deal remains.
Observers now say the sequencing of hostage/prisoner returns is the immediate litmus test of the deal’s credibility, a successful exchange could unlock phase two, while delays or disputes over identity and timing risk reigniting violence.
Bottom line
The October 10 ceasefire is holding in name but contested in practice. It has saved lives by halting the worst of the bombardment, enabling the return of some hostage remains, and creating limited space for aid. However, lives remain at acute risk, particularly along the yellow line and in areas where the IDF is still deployed. The stakes around Phase Two, which is expected to bring broader Israeli withdrawals, an international stabilization force, and a larger humanitarian-access package, have risen since November 17, when the UN Security Council adopted a resolution endorsing the ceasefire framework and authorizing the proposed ISF. Although mediators have framed the truce as a possible foundation for a longer-term arrangement, previous lulls have repeatedly collapsed, and without these steps it risks becoming yet another temporary pause.