Israel-Hamas Ceasefire Deal: October 2025 Agreement Explained

Last updated 4 days ago ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

After two years of conflict that reshaped the Middle East, Israel and Hamas agreed in early October 2025 to the first phase of a U.S.-brokered plan. Announced by U.S. President Donald Trump, the agreement marked a significant development since the war began.

The deal promised a halt to fighting, the release of all remaining Israeli hostages held in Gaza, the freeing of approximately 2,000 Palestinian prisoners, and increased humanitarian aid into the territory.

The Israeli cabinet ratified the deal on October 10, 2025. It represented a significant moment, born from international pressure, regional mediation, and shifts in the strategic calculations of both Israel and Hamas. However, it also left challenging issues – ncluding the disarmament of Hamas and the future governance of Gaza – for a later phase.

The Israeli cabinet ratified the deal on October 10, 2025. It represented a pivotal moment, born from immense international pressure, regional mediation, and a fundamental shift in the strategic calculations of both Israel and Hamas. However, it also left the most intractable issues – the disarmament of Hamas and the future governance of Gaza – for a later, more uncertain phase.

Two Years of Conflict

The October 2025 agreement emerged after 24 months of warfare and diplomatic efforts.

October 7, 2023: The Beginning

The conflict began at dawn on October 7, 2023, when Hamas-led militants launched an assault from Gaza into southern Israel. In what became one of the deadliest days in Israel’s history, attackers breached security barriers, fired thousands of rockets, and attacked Israeli communities and a music festival.

The assault resulted in the deaths of approximately 1,195 people, mostly civilians, and the abduction of 251 others who were taken as hostages into Gaza.

Israel’s Response

Israel’s response was substantial. The government formally declared war, with Defense Minister Yoav Gallant ordering a siege of the Gaza Strip. Israeli forces invaded the Gaza Strip in late October 2023. In the initial months, extensive damage occurred to infrastructure, hospitals and schools were affected, and more than a million Palestinians were displaced as Israel sought to dismantle Hamas’s infrastructure.

What followed was a massive retaliatory campaign by air, land, and sea that saw Israeli forces invade the Gaza Strip in late October 2023. In the initial months, entire cities were flattened, hospitals and schools were destroyed, and more than a million Palestinians were displaced from their homes as Israel sought to dismantle Hamas’s infrastructure.

Previous Ceasefire Attempts

Early diplomatic efforts, brokered by Egypt and Qatar, led to a fragile, week-long truce in November 2023 that saw the exchange of some hostages for Palestinian prisoners. However, fighting quickly resumed.

A more structured and ambitious three-stage ceasefire agreement was reached in January 2025, again mediated by the United States, Egypt, and Qatar. The deal began on January 19, 2025, and saw the phased release of 33 Israeli hostages in exchange for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners over several weeks.

However, this agreement collapsed by March 18, 2025, amid a storm of mutual recriminations. Israel accused Hamas of delaying the release process, while Hamas and international observers accused Israel of violating the terms by killing Palestinians, hindering aid, and refusing to begin negotiations for the second phase of the deal, which was meant to secure a permanent end to the war.

The failure of this deal created a profound trust deficit that would heavily influence the negotiations later that year. Hamas learned that releasing hostages in an initial phase without an ironclad guarantee for a permanent cessation of hostilities was a strategic vulnerability. This experience directly led to its insistence in the October talks that the U.S. president himself act as a guarantor for the war’s definitive end.

Major Military Events (2024-2025)

Following the March 2025 collapse, the war continued. Key military operations included:

The Rafah Offensive (May-July 2024) A major Israeli operation in the southern Gaza city of Rafah, which had become a refuge for over a million displaced Palestinians.

The Killing of Yahya Sinwar (October 2024) The elimination of Hamas’s leader in Gaza was a significant development for Israel.

The Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire Agreement (November 2024) An agreement that reduced fighting on Israel’s northern front after more than a year of cross-border conflict with Hezbollah.

Despite these developments, the remaining Israeli hostages were not freed, and Hamas, though weakened, was not eliminated.

The Humanitarian Crisis

By October 2025, the humanitarian situation in Gaza had become severe:

Casualties

More than 67,000 Palestinians had been killed, with women and children comprising about half the casualties, according to the Gaza health ministry. The war had also killed more than 1,700 Israelis.

Displacement

Nearly 90% of Gaza’s population of more than 2 million people had been driven from their homes, many multiple times.

Destruction

An estimated 70% of Gaza’s buildings had sustained damage. Critical infrastructure, including sewage and wastewater treatment facilities, had been affected.

Food Insecurity

Following renewed restrictions in March 2025, conditions deteriorated. By August 2025, reports indicated severe food insecurity in Gaza City and surrounding areas. More than half a million people faced extreme levels of hunger.

This humanitarian situation, combined with the ongoing conflict, created pressure on all parties to seek a resolution.

What the Agreement Includes

The agreement reached in early October 2025 focused on a detailed, time-bound first phase designed to build momentum for a more permanent peace. The terms were hammered out during intensive indirect talks in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, and were formally ratified by the Israeli cabinet on October 10, 2025. The initial phase was structured around four key commitments.

The Ceasefire

The agreement called for an immediate and comprehensive suspension of all hostilities. An Israeli government spokesperson confirmed the ceasefire would go into force within 24 hours of the cabinet’s approval. This included a halt to all military operations, including aerial and artillery bombardment, and a suspension of aerial surveillance over the areas from which Israeli forces would withdraw.

Hostage and Prisoner Exchange

This was the central transaction of the deal. Hamas committed to releasing all 48 remaining hostages – 20 believed to be alive and 28 deceased – within a 72-hour window that would begin after the 24-hour ceasefire period commenced.

In exchange, Israel agreed to release a substantial number of Palestinian prisoners. Sources familiar with the talks specified this would include approximately 2,000 Palestinians: 250 serving life sentences for serious security offenses and another 1,700 who had been detained since the war began on October 7, 2023.

Notably, Israeli officials made it clear that Marwan Barghouti, a prominent and popular Fatah leader, would not be among those released.

Israeli Troop Withdrawal

The agreement stipulated an initial, partial withdrawal of Israeli Defense Forces troops from Gaza. Within 24 hours of the ceasefire beginning, the IDF was required to pull back its forces to a pre-determined “agreed upon line.” An Israeli government spokesperson indicated this would leave Israeli forces in control of approximately 53% of the Gaza Strip initially.

Humanitarian Aid

To address the food crisis, the deal mandated the immediate and unimpeded entry of massive amounts of humanitarian aid. This involved opening border crossings, such as the Rafah crossing with Egypt, to allow fleets of trucks carrying food, fuel, and medical supplies to surge into Gaza. The terms were designed to be consistent with previous agreements that had called for up to 600 aid trucks per day, a target that had rarely been met.

How the Trump Administration Secured the Deal

The diplomatic effort that resulted in the October 2025 agreement was markedly different from previous attempts, largely due to a shift in U.S. strategy under the Trump administration. The approach was characterized by direct presidential involvement, high-stakes public pressure, and a redefinition of the U.S. role from mediator to arbitrator.

From Mediation to Pressure

While the preceding Biden administration had engaged in extensive diplomacy, its efforts were seen as failing to compel the parties to a deal. The Trump administration, upon taking office in January 2025, adopted a more aggressive posture described as “heavier pressure” and “public threats.” A senior White House official explicitly termed the strategy toward Israel as one of “maximum pressure.”

This was a significant departure from the traditional U.S. stance of avoiding public friction with its key ally. Israeli Colonel Doron Hadar, a former IDF negotiator, observed that “Trump is no longer acting as a mediator but as an arbitrator. In points where no agreement is reached, he will decide.”

This redefinition of the U.S.-Israel relationship was crucial. Historically, American administrations have been reluctant to apply overt pressure on Israel. The Trump administration’s approach was a radical break, demonstrated by its “unprecedented order” for Israel to halt bombing to facilitate hostage recovery. This transactional approach, where U.S. support was implicitly or explicitly tied to Israeli compliance, weakened Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ability to resist American demands and was a decisive factor in securing his agreement.

The 20-Point Plan

At the heart of the U.S. effort was a comprehensive plan, authored by President Trump’s advisers Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff. While the October deal only implemented the first phase, the existence of a broader framework addressing post-war governance, reconstruction, and other issues provided context for negotiations.

Kushner and Witkoff were personally involved in the final, intensive round of indirect talks in Egypt, underscoring the high level of White House engagement.

Public Ultimatums

A hallmark of the Trump administration’s strategy was its use of public ultimatums to force a resolution. In the days leading up to the agreement, President Trump set a firm deadline of midnight on a Sunday for Hamas to accept the terms. He coupled this with a stark threat posted on social media: “If this LAST CHANCE agreement is not reached, all HELL, like no one has ever seen before, will break out against Hamas.”

This high-risk, high-pressure tactic was designed to break the cycle of protracted negotiations and compel both sides to make a final decision.

The Doha Strike

Perhaps the most telling example of the U.S. diplomatic playbook was its handling of an Israeli airstrike in Doha, Qatar, in September 2025. The strike targeted a meeting of Hamas leaders but also killed five lower-ranking members and, critically, a Qatari security official, infuriating a key U.S. ally and mediation partner.

Instead of allowing this diplomatic crisis to derail the peace process, the Trump administration seized it as a point of leverage. U.S. officials orchestrated a phone call in which President Trump had Prime Minister Netanyahu read from a written apology to Qatar’s leader, expressing regret for violating Qatari sovereignty.

This extraordinary act served multiple purposes: it placated Qatar, keeping the crucial mediation channel open, and it sent an unmistakable message to Netanyahu that unconditional U.S. support was a thing of the past. By subordinating a key Israeli security action to a broader American diplomatic objective, the White House demonstrated its willingness to enforce its priorities, thereby increasing Israel’s compliance with the U.S.-led peace plan.

Regional Mediators

While the U.S. played a decisive role, the October 2025 agreement was the product of a collective international effort in which regional partners were indispensable. President Trump himself acknowledged the contributions of mediators from Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey in his announcement of the deal.

Egypt and Qatar

Egypt and Qatar were the primary mediators alongside the United States throughout the two-year conflict. Egypt, sharing a border with Gaza, has long been a key interlocutor and hosted the final, critical round of indirect negotiations in the resort town of Sharm El-Sheikh. Its national security interests – preventing a mass displacement of Palestinians into the Sinai and ensuring stability on its border – made it a deeply invested stakeholder.

Qatar, which hosts Hamas’s political leadership in Doha, provided a unique and essential communication channel. Qatari diplomats were instrumental in drafting proposals and conveying messages between the warring parties, who refused to negotiate directly.

Turkey’s Role

The October 2025 negotiations also saw Turkey emerge as a significant diplomatic player, credited alongside Egypt and Qatar as both a mediator and a guarantor of the deal. The involvement of Turkish intelligence chief Ibrahim Kalin in the final talks reportedly added momentum to the discussions, reflecting a new, more pragmatic regional alignment.

International Support

The U.S. strategy was not limited to working with the core mediators. It also involved building a broader coalition of Arab and Muslim nations to publicly support the 20-point plan, which in turn increased the political pressure on Hamas to accept the terms.

The deal was met with a chorus of international approval, with leaders from the United Nations, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, China, and the United Arab Emirates all welcoming the breakthrough and urging its full implementation. This global consensus underscored the overwhelming desire to end a conflict that had destabilized the entire region.

Why Both Sides Agreed

The October 2025 agreement can be understood as reflecting changed circumstances after two years of war.

Netanyahu’s Considerations

For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the decision to accept the deal was influenced by several factors:

Domestic Pressire

The war had become unpopular in Israel. By early 2025, polls showed that a majority of the public supported ending the conflict. This sentiment was reflected in sustained protests led by the families of the hostages.

Political Factors

Despite military achievements, Netanyahu faced political challenges. An analysis suggested Netanyahu decided to pursue a deal, calculating that returning the hostages would provide a political benefit.

Coalition Response

The deal triggered a response within Netanyahu’s coalition. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir resigned in protest. However, Netanyahu likely calculated that he could manage this departure.

International Relations

By October 2025, Israel faced international criticism and pressure from the United States.

Hamas’s Considerations

For Hamas, the agreement represented a strategic adjustment.

Military Situation

Two years of warfare had significantly affected Hamas’s military capabilities. The loss of senior commanders had impacted the organization’s leadership structure.

Political Pressure

Hamas faced pressure from regional actors – Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey – to make concessions.

The Hostage Liability

Hamas’s objectives shifted to ensuring the organization’s continued existence. By securing the release of thousands of Palestinian prisoners and ending active hostilities, the group could claim to have achieved certain goals.

Redefining Victory

With its original goals no longer attainable, Hamas’s primary objective shifted to what one expert termed “mere existence.” By surviving Israel’s two-year campaign aimed at its complete annihilation, the group could frame the outcome as a form of victory, having forced Israel to the negotiating table and secured the release of thousands of Palestinian prisoners.

Reactions to the Deal

The announcement of the ceasefire deal triggered various reactions:

Gaza: Mixed Emotions

For Palestinians in Gaza, the news was met with a mixture of relief and caution. While some celebrations occurred, many expressed concern that the deal would collapse, as previous agreements had. For a population where nearly everyone had been displaced, the primary hope was to return home.

Many expressed fear that the deal would collapse, just as previous truces had. “We have experienced this many times before, and each time we were disappointed again, so this time fear and caution are stronger than ever,” said Ola Al-Nazli, a 47-year-old displaced from Gaza City.

The relief at the silencing of the guns was inextricably linked to the pain of irreversible loss. “I am happy and unhappy,” said Mohammad Al-Farra. “We have lost a lot of people and lost loved ones, friends, relatives and homes.”

For a population where nearly everyone had been displaced and a famine had taken hold, the primary hope was simple: to return home and live in safety, without the sound of bombs.

Israel: Celebration and Grief

In stark contrast, the news was met with scenes of unadulterated joy and celebration in Tel Aviv’s “Hostages Square,” the epicenter of the two-year protest movement. Families of the hostages hugged, cheered, and popped champagne, overcome with emotion at the prospect of their loved ones’ return.

“Matan is coming home. These are the tears I prayed for,” said the mother of one hostage.

The relief was a national catharsis, but it was also tinged with the grief for those hostages who would be returning only as remains, their families now preparing for funerals instead of reunions.

The Palestinian Authority

The internationally recognized Palestinian Authority, which governs parts of the West Bank but was largely sidelined during the conflict, officially welcomed the agreement. PA President Mahmoud Abbas urged all parties to implement the deal and expressed hope that it would lead to a permanent political solution and the establishment of a Palestinian state.

This statement underscored the PA’s effort to maintain its relevance in a diplomatic process dominated by its rival, Hamas, and international powers.

Unresolved Challenges

The October 2025 agreement addressed immediate concerns but deferred difficult issues.

Hamas’s Disarmament

A core component of broader peace plans involves the disarmament of Hamas. However, this remains a point of disagreement. While the group has indicated willingness to hand over governance, the prospect of complete disarmament is uncertain.

While the group has signaled a willingness to hand over governance to a technocratic body, the prospect of its fighters voluntarily decommissioning their personal weapons is considered highly unlikely by most observers. This fundamental clash of interests remains the single greatest obstacle to a permanent peace.

Gaza’s Future Governance

The U.S. plan envisions a complex, multi-stage process for Gaza’s future governance: a temporary, apolitical Palestinian committee overseen by an international board, which would eventually hand power to a reformed Palestinian Authority.

The immense difficulty of establishing such a body cannot be overstated. Key questions remain unanswered, including how to form a committee that is acceptable to both Israel and various Palestinian factions, and how to prevent Hamas from exercising a de facto veto over the process.

International Presence

The peace plan calls for the deployment of an International Stabilization Force to provide security in Gaza during transition. While the U.S. has committed personnel to a coordination center, the force itself has yet to be fully formed.

Critical details – such as which countries will contribute troops, what their mandate and rules of engagement will be, and how they will be funded – have yet to be negotiated.

Trust Issues

The peace process faces significant challenges due to distrust between parties. Each side has concerns about the other’s intentions and compliance with agreements.

Hamas sought assurances from the U.S. that Israel would not resume the war after the hostages were released. Israel has concerns that Hamas might use the ceasefire to rebuild its capabilities.

Once the hostages are returned, Israel’s primary incentive for restraint will be reduced, and there will likely be domestic pressure to resume operations if Hamas does not comply with terms. This creates risk that the process may stall after the initial phase.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.