Israel finds final hostage in Gaza, clearing path for second ceasefire phase
The Israeli military announced Monday it has recovered the body of the final hostage held in the Gaza Strip, a move that officials say clears the way for the next stage of a multi-phase ceasefire agreement.
The recovery follows a large-scale military operation at a cemetery in northern Gaza to locate the remains of Ran Gvili. The return of all hostages, both living and deceased, was a central requirement of the first phase of the truce.
"With this, all those kidnapped have been brought back from the Gaza Strip," the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said in a statement.
International mediators, including the Trump administration, are now pressuring both Israel and Hamas to transition to the second phase of the U.S.-brokered deal, which went into effect on Oct. 10. That stage calls for the establishment of an international stabilization force, the creation of a Palestinian technocratic government, and the disarmament of Hamas.
More than 71,000 people have been killed during the war, according to the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry. While Israel disputes those statistics, the United Nations considers the figures to be the most reliable estimate available.
Saigon Sentinel Analysis
The recovery of the final hostage marks a symbolic conclusion to the ceasefire’s first phase—a milestone that is as significant as it is precarious. However, the diplomatic path forward now enters a far more treacherous territory. Phase Two hinges on the disarmament of Hamas and the establishment of a new Palestinian governing authority, the very structural hurdles where previous peace frameworks have historically collapsed.
The Trump administration’s strategy reflects the President’s signature brand of coercive diplomacy: pairing maximalist threats—warning Hamas they will pay a "heavy price" if they refuse to disarm—with the "International Peace Committee," a grand but ill-defined initiative unveiled at Davos. While the White House is clearly angling for a landmark diplomatic legacy, the plan is already exhibiting profound structural vulnerabilities.
Deep-seated international skepticism remains the primary headwind. The refusal of traditional European allies, as well as adversaries like China and Russia, to sign on underscores a global lack of confidence in a framework that lacks a concrete roadmap. Most telling is the committee's founding charter, which conspicuously omits any explicit reference to the Gaza Strip despite it being the purported center of the crisis. This omission suggests that Washington’s current trajectory may prioritize high-stakes political optics over the granular, multilateral consensus required for a durable regional resolution.