Palestinians in Gaza Confront Reality Behind Ceasefire’s Second Phase

pter, but daily life remains fraught with insecurity, humanitarian strain, and uncertainty about what the future holds.

The second phase of the ceasefire — ushered in by announcements from U.S. negotiators — was supposed to mark a transition from active conflict to governance, demilitarization, and reconstruction. It was designed to initiate structural changes, including the formation of a new National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) tasked with managing day‑to‑day affairs, and expectations of disarmament efforts and broader Israeli troop withdrawal from the Strip.

Yet for ordinary Palestinians in Gaza, the reality on the ground paints a far more fragile and unsettling picture than these political developments might suggest.

Hope Meets Hard Reality

When the first phase of the ceasefire took effect in October 2025, there was cautious optimism among many Gazans. Civilians hoped that a halt in major hostilities — even if imperfect — would offer respite from years of war, destruction, and dislocation. Tens of thousands of displaced families returned to remnants of their homes, and humanitarian organizations promised increased aid deliveries.

But now, as the second phase begins, much of that hope has been tempered by continued violence, restricted movement, and an entrenched humanitarian crisis. Recent reports show that despite formal diplomatic milestones:

Israeli forces have continued targeted strikes in parts of Gaza, killing civilians even after the ceasefire’s supposed transition.

Humanitarian hardship remains severe — a three‑month‑old baby recently died from hypothermia amid freezing winter conditions and a lack of adequate shelter, highlighting how dire conditions persist for displaced families.

Daily necessities like reliable electricity, water, food, and medical supplies are still in desperately short supply. Intensive destruction of infrastructure has left many residents in prolonged precarity. International agencies say comprehensive aid remains insufficient to meet the vast needs.


This disconnect between ceasefire declarations and on‑the‑ground realities has left many Gazans disillusioned and skeptical.

Skepticism and Suffering Among Civilians

Families who endured years of warfare and displacement are now watching foreign‑led political processes with wary eyes. Inside Gaza, voices like those of Khaled — a resident watching events from a makeshift shelter — sum up a pervasive sentiment: “We hope it’s not just words on paper. We want real change we can see.”

His concerns are echoed by other political analysts and ordinary civilians who point out that key conditions of the ceasefire’s first phase — such as an end to large‑scale violence, a meaningful Israeli troop withdrawal, and unfettered humanitarian access — have not been fully realized. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself described the second phase announcement as largely “symbolic,” raising doubts about full implementation of the agreement.

Critics stress that real progress depends heavily on both parties adhering to commitments that, so far, have been elusive. The formation of the NCAG, for instance, could be an important step toward governance, but Palestinians point out that a committee cannot function effectively without secure territory, freedom of movement, and sufficient international support reaching those most in need.

Humanitarian Conditions: Beyond Politics

Beyond political maneuvering, the humanitarian situation remains catastrophic:

Thousands of families still live in makeshift shelters, with tents battered by winter winds and minimal insulation.

Aid deliveries have increased compared to wartime conditions, but are still far below what is required to address mass malnutrition, scarce medical supplies, and widespread destruction of infrastructure.

Many civilians have little access to functioning health services or clean drinking water — conditions that disproportionately affect children, the elderly, and those with chronic illnesses.


These daily challenges underscore a grim truth: the transition to Phase Two may be underway in diplomatic terms, but the tangible benefits for ordinary Palestinians have been slow to materialize.

Political Obstacles and Uneven Implementation

The ceasefire’s second phase is not just a humanitarian or administrative question — it is deeply political. The agreement calls for difficult steps such as the disarmament of Hamas, a contentious issue that remains hotly debated and unresolved. Hamas has expressed willingness to negotiate, but disagreements persist, especially around what demilitarization and sovereignty should look like in a post‑conflict Gaza.

Equally significant is Israel’s continued control over borders, crossings, and large swaths of territory — factors that influence the flow of aid and the ability of any new governing body to exert authority. These dynamics have fueled ongoing debates over the feasibility and authenticity of the second phase.

What Gazans Want: Stability, Aid, and Dignity

For many Palestinians in Gaza, the phase two political framework matters less than concrete improvements in daily life. They want:

Expanded, reliable access to food, water, and medical care.

Safeguards for civilian safety free from airstrikes or small‑scale hostilities.

The reopening of crossings like Rafah to facilitate travel, commerce, and humanitarian corridors.

Functional institutions capable of providing education, public services, and employment opportunities.


Without these essentials, Phase Two risks being seen not as a step toward peace, but as a bureaucratic pivot that fails to address the immediate needs of a population yearning for stability and dignity.

A Fragile Future

The second phase of the Gaza ceasefire, intended to begin a transition from active conflict to governance and reconstruction, now faces a stark reality check. Diplomatic declarations have arrived — but so have ongoing violence, humanitarian deprivation, and political deadlock.

For Palestinians in Gaza, confronting the reality behind the ceasefire means balancing cautious hope with the enduring challenges of survival. Only time will tell whether this diplomatic shift can translate into real improvements on the ground — or whether it becomes another phase marked by unmet promises and deepening uncertainty.



Ifouide