OPINION - Uncertain fate of second phase of Gaza ceasefire agreement

By Dr. Ali Bakir

- The author is an assistant professor at Qatar University and a non-resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council in Washington.

ISTANBUL (AA) - After the long-anticipated hostage exchange between Hamas and Israel last week, preparations for the second phase of the ceasefire agreement—finalized on Jan. 15 and enacted on Jan. 19—are underway. According to that agreement, the second phase was scheduled to begin on Feb. 3. However, due to Israeli stalling and the continuous introduction of additional conditions and demands, the first phase was extended, and the second phase was postponed.

Stalling or breaching agreements has become a tradition for Israel. In the case of the Gaza ceasefire agreement, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delayed for over a year before accepting an agreement that was initially presented to him at the onset of the Israeli aggression in Gaza. The implementation of the first phase of the ceasefire agreement faced significant challenges, including delays in prisoner exchanges and ongoing tensions in key regions.

Israel delayed the release of Palestinian prisoners, citing Hamas’s celebratory handover ceremonies. Critics argue that this was a pretext for stalling commitments. Moreover, reports suggest that Netanyahu may be escalating tensions in other regions, such as Syria, Lebanon, and even the West Bank, where significant military operations have occurred as a strategic distraction or leverage in negotiations. Israel has also maintained a presence in key areas like the Philadelphi Corridor, which triggered tensions with Egypt, and threatened to resume war.

- Transition to second phase

With the first phase now concluded, Israel faces a pivotal decision regarding the next stage of the ceasefire. On Feb. 28, Egypt announced the commencement of negotiations for the next phase of the ceasefire agreement. Accordingly, officials from Israel joined mediators from Qatar and the United States in Cairo for intensive discussions. The ongoing negotiations between Israel and Hamas remain precarious, with the transition to the second phase appearing likely but not guaranteed. This phase is crucial for securing a permanent end to the war, releasing the remaining hostages, and ensuring the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza.

Moreover, the ceasefire process is heavily influenced by the roles of guarantor countries—namely the United States, Qatar, and Egypt. These nations are supposed to enforce the three-phase peace plan, though their influence is often challenged by Israel. As a primary mediator, Qatar remains dedicated to establishing a sustainable ceasefire and continues to be involved in efforts to that end. Focused on border security and rejecting any mass Palestinian displacement into Sinai, Egypt is also heavily engaged in discussions to initiate the second phase of the agreement, as well as in post-war planning.

Under the Trump administration, one might expect the US to pressure Israel to fulfill its commitments. However, US President Donald Trump’s broader Gaza plan, which includes seizing Gaza and proposals for the forced relocation of Palestinians, not only threatens to destabilize the ceasefire agreement but would likely empower Netanyahu and encourage his far-right supporters to continue their aggression against the Palestinians. This could escalate into a broader crisis, as Egypt and Jordan push back against Israeli resettlement proposals and US pressure to accommodate Palestinians who are expelled from their homelands.

Hamas has announced its commitment to fulfilling the second stage of the ceasefire agreement, aiming for a sustainable and permanent ceasefire as well as the full withdrawal of Israeli occupation from Gaza. However, the position of Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu, the far-right elements within the Israeli government, and the divisions in Israeli institutions suggest that Israel may prefer a resumption of hostilities or war. The fact that the US administration is applying zero pressure on the Israeli government could further facilitate Israel’s return to war.

In early February 2025, Trump introduced a controversial proposal aimed at seizing Gaza and forcing the expulsion of Palestinians from it under the pretext of “redevelopment plans under US control.” This initiative has sparked considerable backlash and poses significant risks to ongoing negotiations in the region.

- Trust for US disappearing

One of the most significant consequences of Trump’s proposal is the erosion of trust among the involved parties. Palestinians and Arab states perceive the plan as an act of ethnic cleansing, which could harden Hamas' stance against any further negotiations. This loss of trust could hinder dialogue, increasing Palestinian resistance and resentment amid perceived aggression and injustice.

Moreover, the proposal presents an opportunity for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's far-right allies, who support the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians as a means to avoid commitments to withdraw from occupied territories in Gaza and elsewhere. This alignment with far-right interests could derail the second phase of negotiations, as these factions may leverage the proposal to justify a refusal to make the concessions or compromises essential for peace talks. Such dynamics could further complicate the already fragile negotiations.

The response from key mediators in the region, including Egypt and Qatar, as well as other stakeholders such as Jordan and major actors in the Arab and Muslim world, such as Saudi Arabia and Türkiye, has been overwhelmingly negative. These nations have outright rejected Trump’s plan, warning that it threatens regional stability and could lead to the collapse of ongoing negotiations and a resumption of war. Their rejection of the plan indicates a significant diplomatic rift that could hinder efforts to achieve a lasting resolution to the conflict.

Additionally, the fragility of the current ceasefire is at risk due to Prime Minister Netanyahu's belief that war has secured him political gains that no peace agreement could provide. Consequently, he has a vested interest in waging and resuming conflicts and wars in Gaza and the region. He interprets Hamas’ commitment to the ceasefire agreement as a sign of weakness. However, Hamas has vowed to respond actively to any attempts at forced relocation or a resumption of hostilities, raising the specter of renewed conflict. Such escalations could not only halt the release of hostages but also plunge the region back into chaos, undermining any progress made thus far.

*Opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Anadolu's editorial policy.