We Have a Ceasefire. Now What?
This week from the J Street Policy Center
As senior Trump Administration officials continue shuttling to Israel to ensure the Gaza ceasefire holds and advance its next phase – disarming Hamas, deploying an alternative security and governance structure and facilitating further Israeli withdrawals – the J Street Policy Center has published three new analyses on what it will take for the agreement to succeed:
Sidelining Hamas by Beginning Phase II Implementation
Frank Lowenstein, who led the US team that negotiated the 2014 Israel–Hamas ceasefire, focuses on the importance of ensuring adherence to the agreement’s first phase while immediately working to implement the elements of Phase II already broadly accepted by both parties: Deploying a Palestinian technocratic government and police force, and forming an International Stabilization Force. Progress on these fronts will lay the groundwork for resolving the more difficult issues of Hamas’ disarmament and the IDF’s withdrawal from Gaza.
Facilitating Gaza’s Humanitarian Recovery
Larry Garber, former head of the USAID/West Bank-Gaza mission, outlines immediate priorities for addressing Gaza’s humanitarian crisis as outlined in the ceasefire plan. To facilitate a rapid surge in aid, he recommends establishing a joint US-UN-IDF humanitarian operations center that will coordinate increased deliveries, opening additional crossing points and identifying professionals to staff the ministries that will oversee the restoration of basic services in Gaza.
The Key Role of Egypt, Qatar and Turkey
Jen Gavito, former Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, examines how Egypt, Qatar and Turkey – serving as regional guarantors alongside the United States – may shape the implementation of the next phase of the ceasefire. Each country brings unique capabilities and strategic objectives that will be vital to maintaining the ceasefire, rebuilding Gaza, disarming Hamas and creating an interim Palestinian governance and security structure.






Why wasn't an "international stabilization force" in place at the getgo?