Arab political analyst: Palestinians see second phase of agreement as key to ending Gaza war.
Political analyst Iyad Ibrahim al-Qura stated that the Gaza war is currently in a temporary lull because the Israeli occupiers treat the ceasefire as a political and security tool to manage the conflict, rather than a real path to ending the aggression.
Al-Qura explained that this model of “managed peace” reflects the traditional Israeli approach, which is based on controlling and prolonging the conflict, rather than resolving it or reaching a clear end to the war.
He noted that the second phase of the Gaza agreement has become the focus of the conflict not simply as a technical procedure or an implementation step, but as a test ground for the conflicting Palestinian, regional and international wills, with consequences extending beyond the Gaza Strip to the overall balance of power in the region.
Al-Qura explained that this phase is not a bargaining chip or bargaining tool, but a Palestinian demand to end the destruction and move towards recovery.
He stated that the occupiers are approaching the second phase with a different logic, as the occupying government’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seeks to redefine it on his own terms, allowing him to manage the consequences of the war rather than end it. This is linked to the deep internal crisis and his constant attempts to evade responsibility by maintaining pressure on Gaza or shifting the focus of the conflict to other arenas.
Al-Qura added that the United States is approaching Gaza from an administrative, economic and security perspective, devoid of any Palestinian national content, and is focusing on what he calls “functional stability” and preventing an explosion, without addressing the root causes of the conflict or ending the occupation. This opens the door to projects for managing the Gaza Strip that ignore the issue of sovereignty and national rights, and turn Gaza into a manageable security and economic issue rather than the aspirations of the people living under occupation.
Regarding the role of the mediators, he explained that, while they adhere to the text of the agreement, they practically lack the necessary tools to implement and guarantee it. Their role is limited to time management and de-escalation, with no real ability to implement the second phase or prevent its circumvention, which makes the agreement fragile and prone to erosion under the pressure of constant Israeli blackmail.
In this context, Al-Qura warned against the scenario of the war spreading towards Lebanon or Iran, considering it one of the options for Israel to evade the commitments of the second phase.
He explained that a possible escalation with Hezbollah or an increase in the level of threats against Iran would be used as leverage to change the regional landscape and postpone any commitment to end the Gaza war.
He stressed that this approach is more influenced by domestic political calculations than security imperatives, even if the price is a wider regional conflagration.
Al-Qura concluded by saying that the second phase of the de-escalation path has become an arena of open political conflict, where Palestinians seek a minimum of stability and a decent life, while the occupiers treat the war as a permanent project to manage their internal and regional crises.
He emphasized that today’s battle is not simply about implementing a phase of the agreement, but about defining the end of the war itself. Either an end that opens up a horizon for the future, or a new stage in a long-term process of blackmail and conflict.