https://arab.news/zm8y6
After the first steps of the ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israel were announced last month, the second phase emerged as a more complicated turning point. It offers real opportunities but carries significant risks. The 20-point peace plan linked to US President Donald Trump outlines several steps for improving conditions in Gaza, with particular importance placed on this second phase.
If the parties uphold their commitments, this phase could introduce a basic level of security stability in Gaza. It includes the withdrawal of Israeli forces from key areas of the Strip, the introduction of international or Arab security arrangements and the removal of Gaza from the cycle of ongoing military operations.
It also opens the path toward long-delayed reconstruction: clearing rubble, restoring essential infrastructure and beginning wider rebuilding according to standards that could make the Strip capable of development, rather than permanent crisis management.
While the first phase centered on prisoner exchanges and humanitarian access, the second phase offers the chance to reconsider governance, reaffirm Palestinian political legitimacy and link security arrangements with broader political and civil processes.
International and regional involvement is one of the strongest assets of this stage. Engagement from Egypt, Qatar, Turkiye, the US and several European countries provides a broad base of support that could give the agreement real momentum and prevent early stagnation. It also signals that Gaza’s future has become a matter of wider international concern rather than a limited bilateral issue.
International engagement provides a broad base of support that could give the agreement real momentum
Dr. Abdellatif El-Menawy
Despite these opportunities, the obstacles are substantial. The most immediate challenge is the deep lack of trust between the parties. Israel insists that Hamas must disarm, or at least freeze its military capabilities, before it fully withdraws. Hamas insists that any withdrawal must be reciprocal and simultaneous, otherwise it would be seen as surrendering political standing without guarantees.
There is also a clear institutional vacuum surrounding the question of who will govern Gaza after Israel’s withdrawal: the Palestinian Authority, a technocratic body or an international committee. None of these options has been agreed upon and the matter remains highly contentious.
Operational oversight is another weak point. Mechanisms to deal with Hamas’ tunnels and weapons stockpiles have not been activated and Israel has not clarified the boundaries or details of its intended withdrawal zones. This lack of definition leaves the agreement exposed to rapid collapse.
At the same time, Gaza faces a severe humanitarian crisis that has not been addressed adequately. If left unresolved, it could trigger renewed escalation or undermine any early signs of stability.
Another major risk comes from within Israel itself, where far-right parties such as Religious Zionism strongly oppose full withdrawal or arrangements that might be seen as concessions. This places the Israeli leaders under conflicting internal and external pressures.
Gaza now stands at a critical crossroads. It has entered a period of temporary calm that could become a test of whether a lasting agreement is possible. The first phase, focused on humanitarian access and prisoner exchanges, is ending. The second phase has not yet begun in an organized way, creating a dangerous vacuum that could alter the entire landscape.
The involvement of multiple mediators — Egypt, Qatar, the US and Turkiye — adds weight but also raises essential questions: who will hold authority in Gaza, who will manage daily governance and who will enforce security and accountability during the postwar transition?
Gaza has entered a period of temporary calm that could become a test of whether a lasting agreement is possible
Dr. Abdellatif El-Menawy
In this context, the second phase becomes not only a test of whether the agreement can be managed but whether the parties can shape a new reality. The core question is no longer simply about stopping active fighting, but whether a workable model for “the day after” can be built. Success depends not only on written commitments but on the political will to turn them into practical steps without returning to confrontation.
Egypt’s role remains central. Cairo is the regional actor most capable of balancing security needs with humanitarian realities and it recognizes that stability in Gaza is directly tied to stability in Sinai and the wider region. However, meaningful progress depends on Palestinian political unity and on Hamas’ readiness to accept real structural change rather than limited adjustments. Without unity, the process risks collapsing back to its starting point.
Several conditions are essential for success. A political process for governing Gaza must be launched, based on genuine partnership with the PA or another representative national body, with a clear timetable for transition. An international monitoring mechanism — potentially a multinational presence — must be activated to oversee implementation, ensure compliance and prevent backtracking. Governance should be linked directly to reconstruction and development so that Gazans see tangible improvements: restored electricity, better infrastructure, rapid rebuilding and visible steps toward normal life.
On the Israeli side, internal political obstacles require clear guarantees that allow for a safe and gradual withdrawal while reducing pressure from opposing political factions.
The second phase should not preserve the existing reality or reproduce it in another form. It should establish a new balance of interests: security for Israel, governance and stability for Palestinians, and an effective role for regional mediators. It will determine whether Gaza becomes a space for stability and development or slips back into another cycle of destruction and retaliation.
The opportunity remains within reach, but it will not last indefinitely. The agreement’s success will be measured not by signatures but by implementation and by the ability of all parties to build trust and make reciprocal concessions. The second phase is not merely another ceasefire; it is a defining moment between constructing a sustainable peace and returning to a situation of chaos that could engulf all sides.
- Dr. Abdellatif El-Menawy has covered conflicts worldwide. X: @ALMenawy