Full story
Qatar's Gaza mediation stance
Qatar's prime minister told the Doha Forum that direct engagement, including talks with non-state armed groups such as Hamas, is the only realistic route to lasting stability in Gaza.
“"inclusive political engagement — including talks with non-state armed groups — is the only realistic route to lasting stability in conflict zones from Afghanistan to Gaza."”
He said Qatar has repeatedly mediated by hosting offices for Hamas and other groups to facilitate ceasefires, hostage releases and aid deliveries.
Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani defended Qatar's mediation record and rejected accusations that Qatari aid to Gaza was diverted to Hamas.
He also stressed that reconstruction costs should fall on those responsible for the destruction.
Qatar framed the current pause as fragile and insisted a durable settlement requires Israeli withdrawal and open movement into and out of Gaza.
Ceasefire fragility in Gaza
Mediators and Gaza authorities say the pause in large-scale fighting is fragile and incomplete.
They say this because Israeli forces have continued operations that killed Palestinians.
Gaza authorities reported more than 360 Palestinians killed by Israeli fire since the ceasefire began.
Other reports counted scores killed in specific incidents during the truce.
Reports from Gaza health authorities and regional monitors document significant Palestinian deaths and wounded even after the Oct. 10 pause.
These findings underline why Qatar and others call for a full Israeli withdrawal and guarantees of free movement.
Gaza phase-two negotiations
Qatar and other mediators are pressing to move to the second phase of a U.S.-backed, multi-stage plan.
“Second phase — ISF, interim technocratic government, Hamas disarmament, Israeli withdrawal — has not started.”
That phase envisages further Israeli withdrawals, creation of an interim technocratic Palestinian administration in Gaza, and deployment of an international stabilization force.
The U.S. insists on full Hamas disarmament, and the mechanics of handing over authority remain fiercely disputed.
Reports say phase one saw hostages exchanged for Palestinian detainees.
Phase two has not begun because Israel wants guarantees of Hamas disarmament while many Muslim and Arab states resist sending troops without clear rules of engagement.
Debate over stabilization force
A central diplomatic impasse is who will lead and serve in the proposed international stabilization force.
Turkey wants a role and has offered to contribute, but Israel has rejected Turkish participation and many Arab and Muslim states are reluctant to send troops without a clear mandate.
Countries disagree over whether the ISF would actively confront Hamas or secure tunnels, or instead function mainly as a monitor alongside a technocratic Palestinian police force.
Those disputes have delayed deployment and threaten the transition from a pause to a durable ceasefire.
Gaza ceasefire terms
Mediators warn that failing to move quickly to concrete steps — including Israeli withdrawal, international monitors, and a credible Palestinian administration — risks a return to all-out war or a collapse into anarchy.
“Senior diplomats and regional officials warned a political settlement for Gaza must move forward quickly or risk a return to war or collapse into anarchy...”
Qatar insists the pause must lead to a lasting political settlement and has pressed that reconstruction be funded internationally.
It also says Gaza’s administration should be handled by a vetted, non-Hamas civil authority, while skeptics warn that without international consensus on the ISF and disarmament the pause will remain fragile.