The day of the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas – Friday, October 10 – is critical, as it lays the foundation for future peace and security in the region. Key initial actions in this first phase include the staged return of hostages and a prisoner exchange, framed by a nonnegotiable military ceasefire and withdrawal plan.
Nothing else could have been addressed – much less administered, even temporarily – if design planning had not first and foremost established the parameters of a military ceasefire and progressive withdrawal plan.
The end of military operations and the retreat of military forces to a line giving Israel control of 53% of the Gaza Strip – the first of three withdrawal stages in President Donald Trump’s plan to prepare for the liberation of hostages – will also permit the effective distribution of large-scale humanitarian assistance to all Palestinian civilians through Gaza.
The release of Israeli hostages – alive and dead – held by Hamas will begin, followed by Israel’s release of Palestinian prisoners serving life sentences in Israeli jails, along with detainees from Gaza.
Overall, Trump’s peace plan for Gaza presents a vision that boldly combines elements of previous efforts. The winding down of combat operations and pursuit of an immediate, full and complete ceasefire were already contemplated in Phase 1 of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2735, adopted on June 14, 2024.
Phase 2 called for a permanent end to hostilities in exchange for the release of all remaining hostages in Gaza and a full withdrawal. Phase 3 proposed a major, multi-year reconstruction plan.
While there may be significant differences over the specifics required at each step, Trump’s list of 20 principles is the only one to receive the backing of virtually all major regional and global stakeholders.
It includes the understanding that the agreed ceasefire must be strictly observed on land at sea and in the air to succeed. It also mandates that Israel and Hamas refrain from all military actions immediately upon signing the agreement.
To support the process, Israel has already begun operational preparations ahead of the agreement’s implementation, and a combat protocol is underway to transition to adjusted deployment lines.
The US is already deploying up to 200 troops to establish a civil-military coordination center in Israel under US Central Command. The center will likely include forces from Arab and Muslim countries such as Egypt, Qatar and Turkey, tasked with monitoring the truce and reporting violations.
Once fundamental adherence to the agreed ceasefire is secured and the hostage and prisoner exchange is completed, the intention is to establish a temporary International Stabilization Force along with international civil administrators. However, this has yet to be agreed upon by all sides.
Even if the UN does not conduct the mission or it is not under UN control, history in the region or elsewhere can offer valuable lessons. Past templates can reveal valuable information. They can be easily adapted to avoid the perception of a continuation of foreign occupation.
The first UN Emergency Force (UNEF 1) was established in 1956 through the Uniting for Peace Resolution, with the consent of the territorial authority, to monitor the armistice along the Israel-Egypt border.
It was a UN General Assembly mission that ended with the Six-Day War in 1967. This option would require all warring parties to agree to a UN General Assembly-issued temporary authority in Gaza, with powers limited to basic policing.
A second option would be to follow the model of the small observer force deployed before the UN Temporary Executive Authority (UNTEA) mission in West New Guinea or the UN Advance Mission in Cambodia, which preceded the deployment of the UN Transitional Administration in Cambodia (UNTAC).
For this precursor mission to be established after the ceasefire or disengagement plan, a prior agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, including Hamas, may be necessary. The initial authorization would be for six months and subject to renewal with the consent of Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
The Disengagement Observer Force, under the Israel-Syria Separation of Forces Agreement of 1974, could also support ceasefire monitoring in Gaza.
The ceasefire observation force in Gaza would focus on maintaining the ceasefire and ensuring compliance, while operating in accordance with local laws and without obstructing civil or humanitarian efforts.
It would have freedom of movement, secure communications and defensive weapons used only for self-defense. The force would conduct inspections and report regularly to all parties.
While the most challenging issues remain on the table – in a region where disappointment often lurks behind every positive development – the Trump peace plan for Gaza is the only available option that, if pursued energetically and effectively, could prevent further chaos and confusion.
The uncertainty surrounding the disarmament of Hamas, the overall lack of Palestinian ownership and the absence of a longer-term political solution should not deter parties from seizing the low-hanging fruit of an immediate improvement to the lives of Palestinians in Gaza.
Eric Alter is a former UN civil servant and dean of a diplomatic academy.
