Today's Edition
By Najla Al Mutasim Al Midfa*
Diplomatic efforts are intensifying to move the Gaza agreement into a new phase following the completion of the first phase and the release of prisoners and detainees. Yet progress towards the second phase of the ceasefire remains stalled. Uncertainty dominates the landscape, visions diverge, and political security and humanitarian tracks are tightly interwoven. This complexity risks pushing any post-war settlement far into the future and raises the possibility that renewed conflict could resurface.
The second phase is particularly challenging because it envisions a comprehensive set of measures: the deployment of an international stabilisation force involving the United States and a number of Arab and European countries; the establishment of an independent Palestinian technocratic body to administer Gaza under international oversight; and the launch of large-scale reconstruction. Each of these elements requires sustained negotiations and clear mechanisms for implementation. Further complicating matters is the demand to disarm Hamas as a precondition for Israel’s full withdrawal from the Strip.
Under these conditions, the likelihood of the plan faltering appears increasingly realistic. Hamas remains armed, and no alternative governing structure has yet emerged on the ground. Although the movement has signalled a willingness to make limited concessions to enable reconstruction, it remains determined to retain a degree of presence and to be part of any future arrangement. This position represents a red line for several regional and international actors and provides justification for continued Israeli military actions, including periodic strikes against faction leaders and infrastructure under the pretext of countering armed groups.
Mediators and regional powers have intensified their engagement in an effort to advance the agreement to its second phase. However, conditions inside Gaza remain deeply unfavourable. Israel continues to obstruct the flow of humanitarian aid, while realities on the ground and in closed-door negotiations have prevented any meaningful shift toward recovery and reconstruction. This unfolds amid a severe humanitarian crisis marked by harsh winter conditions, the absence of basic shelter, and widespread displacement following the extensive destruction of residential areas and infrastructure.
Despite its insistence on implementing Trump’s Gaza peace plan, the United States faces significant obstacles. These include disagreements over Hamas’ disarmament, the composition of the proposed stabilisation force (particularly Israel’s objection to the involvement of certain countries, such as Türkiye) and persistent challenges related to humanitarian access. Casualties and injuries continue to be reported as a result of Israeli strikes despite the ceasefire.
Broader concerns also persist over the “day after” in Gaza. Key questions remain unresolved, including the mandate and authority of the international force, timelines for reconstruction, mechanisms for aid delivery, and Israel’s apparent pursuit of political and security gains without a full military withdrawal from the Strip, despite clear provisions in Trump’s plan calling for a phased Israeli withdrawal.
Even previously discussed arrangements appear to have stalled. These include proposals to form a neutral technocratic committee or a small, non-factional community support of a 10-member body to manage the transitional period. Washington has yet to finalise its vision for Gaza’s future governance, including the international oversight framework and stabilisation mechanisms. Meanwhile, Israel appears intent on delaying the second phase, buying time to entrench realities on the ground, keeping the Rafah crossing closed in both directions, obstructing reconstruction and maintaining troop deployments while controlling more than 54% of the Strip.
Mediators may find an opening by engaging Washington more directly to curb Israeli violations and facilitate humanitarian access. Without sustained US pressure on Israel to advance the agreement, Gaza risks becoming a theatre of intermittent conflict, similar to the situation in Lebanon. A more viable path forward would require a clear timeline, intensified American diplomacy, and decisive steps to implement the agreement before the current fragile calm collapses.
Ultimately, implementing the Gaza agreement may take years. Progress toward the next phase, encompassing political, security, and humanitarian dimensions, will depend on the willingness of key stakeholders, particularly the United States, regional powers, and mediators, to actively push the process forward. Absent such momentum, the region is likely to remain trapped in cycles of instability, with crises managed rather than resolved, and the threat of renewed escalation ever present.
*The writer is a researcher at TRENDS Research & Advisory
