The ceasefire between Israel and Hamas seemingly came to an end overnight after Israel launched dozens of air strikes on targets across Gaza.

Palestinian authorities have said more than 400 people are either dead or missing.

The ceasefire agreed back in mid-January had paused fighting after 15 months of war. It also saw both sides agree to the release of Israeli hostages taken during the 7 October attacks back in 2023, in exchange for Palestinian prisoners.

So what is left of the ceasefire now, and why did Israel choose to strike Hamas?

Gaza strikes latest: Follow live updates

What did the agreed ceasefire look like?

The three-stage deal, brokered by mediators the US, Qatar and Egypt, came into effect on 19 January.

During the first phase, Hamas returned 25 living hostages and the remains of eight others in exchange for the release of nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners.

Israeli forces also withdrew to buffer zones inside Gaza, and hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians returned to northern Gaza. No further hostage releases were called for under the agreement until the second phase.

Negotiations over this second phase of the deal were meant to begin on the 16th day of phase one – 4 February – and were supposed to lead to a permanent ceasefire, the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces and the release of all remaining hostages.

According to the deal, a third phase would include the return of the bodies of dead hostages and the beginning of Gaza’s reconstruction, a mammoth task that will be supervised by Egypt, Qatar and the UN.

It had little detail about the future of Gaza – from how it will be governed, to any guarantees that the ceasefire agreement will bring a permanent end to the war.

Read more:
The competing plans for rebuilding Gaza after the war

What has actually happened?

The first phase of the ceasefire deal officially ended two weeks ago. Israel has since cut off all food, medicine, fuel, electricity and other supplies to Gaza’s population of around two million people, to pressure Hamas to accept a new proposal ahead of a second phase of ceasefire.

The move was widely criticised, with Hamas accusing Israel of trying to cause famine in Gaza, and the head of the UN Palestinian relief agency (UNRWA) warning the territory will experience another hunger crisis if Israel continues to withhold aid.

Israel’s new proposal would require Hamas to release half its remaining hostages – the militant group’s main bargaining chip – in exchange for a ceasefire extension and a promise to negotiate a lasting truce.

It is named the “Witkoff plan”, after US Middle East special envoy Steve Witkoff proposed it last week.

Mr Witkoff also demanded the release of American-Israeli hostage Edan Alexander and the bodies of four hostages who died in captivity.

The proposal made no mention of releasing more Palestinian prisoners.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said it was Hamas’s refusal of this proposal that led to him ordering the strikes on Tuesday.

Unless mediators now step in, Israel’s attack on Gaza could mean a full return to fighting.

Could a new ceasefire be agreed?

Last week, Israel sent a delegation to the Qatari capital, Doha, for more ceasefire talks, and Hamas leaders attended a round of talks in Cairo, but there has been no sign of a breakthrough.

Reacting to the latest strikes, Egypt’s foreign ministry called for all parties to “exercise restraint” and to give mediators space to “complete their efforts to reach a permanent ceasefire”.

Hamas claimed it is “working with mediators to curb the aggression”, adding that it is keen to implement a ceasefire deal.

Meanwhile, a statement from the office of Mr Netanyahu said Israel would act against Hamas with “increasing military strength”. It accused Hamas of repeatedly refusing to release hostages.

The White House said it had been consulted and voiced support for Israel’s actions.

The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) has also issued evacuation orders for a number of areas in Gaza – after the ceasefire agreement allowed hundreds of thousands of people to return to their homes across the region.

The order tells people to leave the neighbourhoods of Beit Hanoun, Khuza’a, Abasan al-Kabira and al-Jadida and head to shelters in Gaza City and Khan Younis.

Sky News Middle East correspondent Alistair Bunkall said the order may indicate that an Israeli land force is preparing to enter the area.

“If you’re going to have a major ground offensive, and if it could from all angles, I think they would look to force Gazan civilians into humanitarian zones,” he said.

“That would give the IDF some freedom of operation, freedom of movement, in open areas.”

Thousands are demanding justice for 59 people killed in a nightclub fire in North Macedonia, as authorities prepare graves for its victims.

More than 150 were also injured after pyrotechnics sparked a fire at Club Pulse in Kocani, with government officials and the nightclub’s manager among 20 people arrested.

But some protests turned violent in the eastern town and in the capital Skopje, where thousands have called for more action amid a litany of alleged safety failures.

As excavators dug a fresh line of graves in the town of 25,000 people, 16-year-old Jovan, who lost a friend in the fire, described his country as “corrupt”.

“I want everyone who helped this place carry on with its business to be jailed,” he said, speaking from a quiet protest in Kocani’s central square.

Some held placards reading “we are not dying from accidents; we are dying from corruption” and “everything is legal here if you have connections”.

A van was overturned there, while others threw rocks at a local government building.

Investigations have so far revealed that the club was operating at double its 250-person capacity, without proper licensing.

Many were trampled as they rushed toward a single exit.

There were numerous safety violations, according to officials, including:

• no emergency exits;
• insufficient fire equipment;
• the use of flammable cladding and no sprinkler system.

Read more:
Windows smashed in nightclub owner’s pub
What we know so far about North Macedonia fire

The EU has previously identified corruption as an obstacle to the country’s accession to the bloc.

Authorities are also investigating allegations club owners bribed officials to bypass safety regulations.

Nationwide inspections of all nightclubs and entertainment venues have been ordered by the government.

Prime Minister Hristijan Mickoski said the club’s licence was issued illegally by the economy ministry, vowing to bring those responsible to justice.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s have both said any ceasefire between their two countries must lead to a lasting peace.

Ukraine has not long marked three years of war, in which hundreds of thousands have died or been injured on both sides, according to the respective authorities.

Follow our live blog for the latest updates about the Ukraine war

The Kremlin’s annexation of more Ukrainian territory during its invasion – which it still calls a “special military operation” -and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s determination to uphold its sovereignty has left many analysts doubtful the war will ever end.

But since his return to the White House, Donald Trump has demanded the two sides “make a deal”, withdrawing vital US support to Kyiv until it agreed to come to the negotiating table.

Mr Zelenskyy has now agreed to a 30-day ceasefire, with Mr Trump due to iron out Russia’s demands in a phone call with Mr Putin on Tuesday.

But beyond that – what would a Ukraine without fighting look like? Here we go through some of the options.

Ongoing ceasefire

Beyond the initial 30-day agreement, providing neither side violates it, the ceasefire could continue indefinitely.

“A ceasefire can go on to be an enduring thing,” Dr David Blagden, associate professor in international security and strategy at the University of Exeter, tells Sky News.

He gives the example of North and South Korea, whereby a demilitarised zone (DMZ) has effectively served as a border between the two countries since the Korean War ended in 1953.

“Even if it doesn’t ever lead to a more satisfactory settlement, it might still be better for both parties than endless conflict,” he says.

But any kind of DMZ would require both Ukraine and Russia to pull their troops away from the frontline, which is unlikely, adds Dr Huseyn Aliyev, senior lecturer in East European studies at the University of Glasgow.

Parts of Ukraine become ‘New Russia’

The alternative would be for both Ukraine and Russia to offer concessions to formally end the war.

Top of Vladimir Putin’s “list of demands” for “long-term peace”, and his justification for invading Ukraine in the first place, is Crimea – and four other regions – Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia – becoming part of a ‘New Russia’, as they were before the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

Read more
Up to 30 countries to be part of Ukraine coalition
Which infrastructure could be part of a deal?

While Luhansk is almost completely under Russian control, Ukraine still holds significant parts of Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson, making them more difficult for Kyiv to let go of.

“We know neither Crimea nor the Donbas regions [Donetsk and Luhansk] would be returned [to Ukraine] as part of a truce,” Dr Aliyev says. “So it would involve ceding control over those parts.

“But Kherson and Zaporizhzhia are more complicated – especially Kherson – as Kherson city was so painfully liberated by Ukraine in 2022.”

Although many doubt Russia would stop there in terms of territory, Dr Blagden adds: “There would be Russian rationale for being content with what they already have. It’s been hugely costly for them – and destroyed a lot of their expensively modernised military. It’s also filtered through into Russian civilian life, to an extent, via the sanctions and casualties, despite the Kremlin’s efforts to insulate Russia’s upper and middle classes from the worst of the war.

“Likewise, for Ukraine – galling and unfair though it may be – there’s likely now more recognition that retaking lost ground will be desperately hard, especially without assured supplies of US weaponry and intelligence. So, they could have reason to live with some sort of ceasefire too.”

Power plants and infrastructure split

Mr Trump has said his team has already proposed “dividing up certain assets” between the two countries – namely “land and power plants” – and will discuss the details with Mr Putin in a phone call on Tuesday.

He did not give any specifics, but these are likely to include the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, which has been occupied by Russia since March 2022, and is one of the largest in the world.

Other key infrastructure that could come under Moscow’s control includes the Nova Kakhovka dam, blown up in 2023 and not yet rebuilt, and other river crossings.

Zelenskyy replaced

A truce would also likely include a new leader for Ukraine. Mr Zelenskyy has already told Sky News he is open to stepping down if it means Ukraine can join NATO.

One of Mr Putin’s demands is that Ukraine is never allowed NATO membership – but replacing Mr Zelenskyy could still serve to appease him – and Donald Trump, who has called him a “dictator” and accused him of “gambling with World War Three”.

“It would be easier for Zelenskyy to call an election and have somebody replace him,” Dr Aliyev says. “But there’s a problem of who that would be – as there’s not much left of the Ukrainian opposition.”

Contenders include Ukrainian ambassador to the UK Valerii Zaluzhnyi – or one of the generals currently in charge of the military, he adds.

But the Kremlin would prefer a pro-Russian regime in Kyiv, according to Dr Blagden.

“Short of being able to conquer the whole country, a government that’s more favourable towards Russian interests would obviously be their preference,” he says.

“Similar to the one they’ve worked hard to install in Georgia, they might hope for the return of Ukraine’s more pro-Russian politicians and sentiment from before 2014. But of course, Ukrainian opinion is now galvanised against anyone seen as a puppet of Moscow.”

‘Minor concessions’ for Ukraine

Although Russia’s demands would mean a series of heavy blows for Ukraine, there could be some “minor concessions”, security and defence analyst Professor Michael Clarke says.

US national security adviser Mike Waltz has said Ukraine would get “security guarantees” if it agrees to cede territory – but has not specified what they would be.

Other possible concessions include the return of tens of thousands of Ukrainian children who were abducted and forcibly resettled in Russia – and prisoners of war on both sides.

In principle, if a truce was agreed, the International Criminal Court could also begin an investigation into whether war crimes were committed on either side.

“In these situations where there’s a fundamental disagreement and you can’t see the way forward, you often concentrate on some of the minor details,” Professor Clarke says.

Starmer’s ‘coalition of the willing’

Sir Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron have spearheaded the idea of a so-called “coalition of the willing” to uphold a potential truce or ceasefire.

Sir Keir’s team says “more than 30” countries are interested in contributing to the peacekeeping force – but the US has been notably absent from leaders’ meetings so far. Vladimir Putin has also said he would not accept NATO forces in Ukraine, posing a major obstacle to the plans.

The prime minister has not specified how the coalition would work but said that military chiefs would meet to discuss the “operational phase” on Thursday.

Lower risk option

According to the experts, the coalition could take two potential forms.

Neither would involve guarding the entire frontline. That’s because, at 640 miles long, it would require more than 100,000 troops at a time – and 300,000 with rotations.

By contrast, the first option would be stationing troops away from the line of control, largely in western Ukraine – or at key infrastructural sites or transport hubs to ensure they continue running smoothly.

This would be a similar operation to the British one in Estonia – where 900 troops are stationed to deter Russian aggression. The Ukrainian one would involve up to 30,000 personnel and be focused primarily on monitoring, logistics, and training, the experts say.

“The challenge for any peacekeeping force is balancing effectiveness and escalatory risk,” Dr Blagden adds.

“Calling it a ‘peacekeeping’ force might create the impression of neutrality. But of course, it wouldn’t be neutral – they’re there to defend one of two sides. It would be better understood as a garrison whose job would be to ensure that Russia can’t attack Ukraine without attacking NATO troops, and therefore risking a wider war with nuclear-armed powers,” he says.

“A larger combat force closer to the frontline would create more deterrence but with more escalatory risk – whereas a smaller force further from the frontline – perhaps merely fulfilling training and support tasks – would carry much less escalatory risk but therefore also be much less of a deterrent”.

Ordinarily, that deterrent would be hugely bolstered by the US, which under NATO’s Article 5 could send in powerful air forces to attack ones on the ground – as it has in places like Iraq.

But Donald Trump’s tense relations with Ukraine and suggestions the US could leave NATO have thrown its Article 5 obligations into major doubt.

‘Rapid reaction force’ closer to frontline

Alternatively, coalition troops could be sent closer to the frontline, Professor Clarke says.

They would be split into brigades manning four or five strategic bases like the cities of Dnipro, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, and Kharkiv or Kyiv.

Describing them as a “rapid reaction force at high readiness”, Professor Clarke adds: “To be able to go to any trouble spot and snuff it out they’d need a lot of transport – particularly air cover to get there quickly enough.”

They too would likely need to be backed up by a US security guarantee, he says, but under the Trump administration, this is by no means certain.

Neutral peacekeeping force

Alternatively, a peacekeeping force could be led by the United Nations, which would recruit personnel from neutral countries in exchange for incentives, as it does elsewhere.

With the second-largest military in NATO, Turkey could be involved, Dr Aliyev says.

But with Vladimir Putin’s rejection of potential NATO forces, he may be more likely to accept ones from the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) nations, Professor Clarke adds.

“Putin has hinted at troops from the Global South as monitors – because he thinks they are on his side,” he says. India in particular could be a viable option, he says.

“India has got big forces and wants to play a bigger strategic role in the world. Russia wouldn’t want to fire on Indian forces because of the political implications for their relationship – so they might be most acceptable to both Russia and the West.”

While a neutral option might be the most practical – it may not be hugely successful, Dr Aliyev cautions.

“Similar missions in Lebanon and sub-Saharan Africa have been relatively low in effectiveness,” he says.”A UN force might be the most feasible for Russia – but a coalition of the willing would last longer.”