What next for Gaza's ceasefire? The obstacles that lie ahead

The ink on Gaza's ceasefire agreement has barely dried, yet Palestinians are already questioning whether to celebrate.

While the first phase delivers concrete outcomes - prisoner exchanges, limited Israeli withdrawals, humanitarian aid convoys - the thorniest questions have been deferred to a nebulous "second phase" that lacks enforcement mechanisms, clear timelines, or international guarantees.

The result is a precarious pause that could either evolve into lasting peace or collapse into renewed violence, depending on political will that currently appears absent.

"Everyone jumped into the air without exception. Trump decided the starting point - negotiations for a trade between stopping the war on Gaza and exchanging prisoners," says Jibril Rajoub, secretary of the Fatah central committee, in an exclusive interview with The New Arab.

"Everyone wants to stop the tragedy and killing in Gaza, but this jump lacks solid foundations."

The scepticism is rooted in experience. For Rajoub and other Palestinian leaders, the absence of binding international commitments threatens to reduce this agreement to another in a long list of broken promises.

The fundamental questions - who will govern Gaza after Hamas, whether Israeli forces will fully withdraw, and how reconstruction can begin amid unresolved sovereignty disputes - remain unanswered.

Meanwhile, far-right Israeli ministers openly threaten to collapse Netanyahu's government if the ceasefire progresses beyond returning hostages.

The 42-day first phase contains measurable commitments. On Monday, 20 surviving Israeli hostages were exchanged for 1,900 Palestinian detainees.

Israeli forces will redeploy from population centres, including Beit Hanoun, Beit Lahiya, and eastern Gaza City. Six hundred aid trucks will enter daily through reopened crossings, including Rafah, under international supervision.

Approximately 1.5 million displaced Gazans can go back to their homes, with more than 500,000 already returning to Gaza City, though border areas remain restricted for security reasons.

Political analyst Esmat Mansour confirms these details are "clear and agreed upon, indicating they can be implemented quickly". But he emphasises a crucial caveat.

"The most important question is whether this agreement is a fundamental part of Trump's comprehensive plan,” he told TNA. “The answer is yes, but there are no clear mechanisms for the remaining steps or specific timelines, leaving matters ambiguous."

Beyond prisoner exchanges and limited withdrawals, nearly everything else exists in a grey zone. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated that "the second phase will include achieving all objectives" and that "disarmament of Hamas and Gaza will happen, whether by easy or hard means".

He emphasised that Israel "retains the right to return to fighting if Hamas obstructs this phase". Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer will lead negotiations alongside US envoy Steve Witkoff, based on security demands determined by Israel's political-security cabinet.

Yet no binding documents specify what "disarmament" means operationally, who will verify compliance, or what could trigger the Israeli military's re-entry into Gaza.

Trump's plan reportedly includes provisions for a weapons-free Gaza, while Hamas sources indicate a willingness to "freeze" weapons within a five-to-10-year truce framework - but explicitly reject surrendering arms.

The agreement mentions destroying military infrastructure, including tunnels and weapons production facilities, under independent monitors, but these monitors haven't been identified, their mandate remains undefined, and enforcement authority is unclear.

A governance vacuum that threatens reconstruction

Gaza's future governance presents perhaps the most intractable challenge. The agreement stipulates that Hamas and other factions commit to playing "no role in governing Gaza, directly or indirectly," with reports suggesting Hamas would transfer administrative control to an independent Palestinian body.

But which body? Under what authority? With what relationship to the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah?

Rajoub articulates the crux of the problem. "We need to guarantee the unity of Palestinian territories and the Palestinian political system. We must have a unified government extending from Rafah to Jenin, with a clear political horizon through an international conference and a Marshall plan for Gaza's reconstruction."

Without resolving governance, reconstruction cannot begin - and without reconstruction, 90% of Gazans remain trapped in catastrophic conditions entering winter.

The Fatah spokesman's official statement emphasised readiness to respond to Palestinian priorities, including "stopping the war, providing relief to people in Gaza, restoring life and reconstruction, and halting attempts to displace Palestinians".

Yet these goals require administrative infrastructure, security guarantees, and international funding - none of which can materialise while sovereignty remains contested.

"Talk of committees and frameworks outside the concept of land and system unity is an Israeli recipe for entrenching division, and we must not be part of it," Rajoub warns. "The alternative is one government with unified standards."

The Palestinian Authority's dilemma is acute: it cannot administer Gaza without Hamas relinquishing control, yet any arrangement that legitimises continued division undermines the viability of a Palestinian state.

Meanwhile, international donors have signalled a willingness to fund reconstruction only if the Palestinian Authority implements reforms and Hamas cedes governance - conditions that require the very political consensus currently absent.

Israel's far-right is a threat to phase two

Netanyahu's coalition faces internal sabotage from the ministers who keep him in power. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich both voted against the ceasefire agreement, with Ben-Gvir threatening to resign "if Hamas continues to exist after the release of hostages". Smotrich called negotiations with Hamas "a grave mistake".

Crucially, neither has yet withdrawn from the government, and both have stated they will "wait to see what happens after the hostages are released". This calculated ambiguity gives them leverage to collapse the coalition precisely when phase two negotiations should begin, potentially sabotaging any comprehensive settlement.

Mansour observes that "the far-right in Israel is trying to portray the agreement as an achievement despite opposing it," which he believes "may lead to bringing down the current government and calling for new elections".

The political calculus is transparent: allow hostage returns to satisfy public pressure, then use phase two's contentious issues - full withdrawal, Hamas disarmament, permanent ceasefire - to trigger a coalition crisis and return to a war footing.

"We are at a sensitive stage where we must not overlook the potential dangers that could lead to deteriorating conditions,” a Palestinian Authority official, speaking on condition of anonymity for security reasons, told TNA.

“It requires genuine cooperation from all parties, and we confirm that any attempt by the current Israeli coalition to sabotage these efforts will face categorical rejection."

Yet rejection without enforcement mechanisms is merely rhetorical. The agreement's viability depends entirely on whether international actors - particularly the United States - will impose consequences for violations. So far, no such framework exists.

Guarantees that aren't actually guarantees

Egypt, Qatar, and the United States have expressed support for "finding sustainable peaceful solutions," according to official statements. Cairo emphasised "the importance of ensuring regional security and stability" and the "necessity of reaching agreements that guarantee the rights of all parties".

Qatar, meanwhile, stressed "the importance of dialogue and cooperation between concerned states" and called for "clear monitoring and implementation mechanisms to ensure everyone's commitment to concluded agreements". The United States confirmed its "commitment to supporting these efforts," pointing to "the importance of transparency and international monitoring".

The three countries discussed "the possibility of establishing joint committees to follow up on implementing commitments," but no precise details have been announced about these mechanisms.

The United Nations expressed support for diplomatic efforts and stressed "the importance of all parties' commitment to relevant international resolutions," calling for "cooperation with regional and local organisations to ensure effective implementation of any reached agreement".

These statements contain no binding commitments, no specified penalties for violations, no deployment timelines for monitors, and no authority to compel compliance. They represent diplomatic positioning, not enforceable guarantees.

Rajoub's assessment is blunt. "The logic of history and the logic of conflict says that if this step is not linked to international recognition independent of Israeli policy, it will be futile. We need clear mechanisms that lead to establishing the Palestinian state."

A calculated gamble or false hope?

For ordinary Palestinians, the ceasefire brings immediate relief - the bombardment stops, aid arrives, and displaced families can assess what remains of their homes. But relief is not resolution. Without progress on phase two, this pause merely delays the next explosion.

The Fatah spokesman outlined the movement's position clearly: the ceasefire represents "a humanitarian and political step" that could "contribute to creating a foundation for cooperation," but "building trust requires actual successive measures, such as mutual releases according to clear timelines and protecting international law".

Palestinian fears centre on a familiar pattern: humanitarian gestures that substitute for political solutions, temporary relief that becomes permanent limbo, international promises that evaporate once immediate crises subside. Rajoub warns that "if Israeli policy continues unchanged, we will remain trapped in suffering and torment".

Mansour suggests that the timeframe for judgment be measured in years, not months. "Celebrating this agreement is premature, as issues and demands remain pending, requiring Palestinians years of work to prove their ability to manage their affairs differently."

The second phase's success depends on variables entirely outside Palestinian control: whether Trump commits political capital to enforcement, whether Netanyahu can withstand coalition pressures, whether international donors deliver funding, whether Arab states leverage diplomatic weight, and whether Hamas genuinely accepts political marginalisation.

Without concrete answers to these variables, celebration seems premature. What Palestinians have secured is breathing space - precious, but potentially brief.

Whether it becomes a foundation for peace or merely a prelude to renewed violence depends on decisions that will be made in the coming weeks by actors whose commitments remain, at best, ambiguous.

This article is published in collaboration with Egab