Analysts: This is what made America determined to implement the Gaza Agreement news

The United States seems determined to move forward with implementing the ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip despite Israel’s attempts to disrupt it in more than one way, but this will put the Palestinian factions facing the challenges of the second phase, which includes disarmament, analysts say.

J.D. Vance, US Vice President, Jared Kushner, and US envoy Steven Witkoff arrived in Tel Aviv on Tuesday and discussed moving to the second phase of the agreement.

While in Tel Aviv, De Vance said that the implementation of Donald Trump’s plan is going better than expected, and that some violence does not mean the collapse of the agreement. Witkoff also said that the United States is working closely with Israel and the United Nations to bring in aid.

At the same time, the Wall Street Journal quoted officials as saying that Trump’s envoys sent a strong message to Benjamin Netanyahu that he must avoid escalation.

Trump said that the allies informed him that they would welcome the entry of a huge force into the Gaza Strip, and threatened the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) if it violated the agreement, stressing that “the time has not yet come to intervene forcefully,” and that Hamas “will face a swift, violent, and brutal end if it does not do the right thing.”

Meanwhile, Hamas leader Khalil al-Hayya said that the statements of the mediators and Trump guarantee an end to the war, stressing commitment to the ceasefire agreement and what was agreed upon with the Palestinian factions.

An agreement too big to collapse

These data indicate that things are moving towards continuing the implementation of the agreement, in the opinion of Republican Party strategic analyst Adolfo Franco, who said that the visit of American officials “means that this agreement is too big to collapse, because it is different from previous agreements.”

According to what Franco said – during the course of events – the message that Washington wanted to convey is that the situation is complicated, and that there is a lot of mistrust and violations on both sides, but this “does not mean the collapse of the agreement.”

The United States, as Franco says, has a great influence on Israel, while Washington’s allies in the region and the International Stabilization Force will have a great influence on Hamas, and thus the two parties will proceed with implementing the agreement.

However, the United States’ focus on moving to the second phase of the agreement aims primarily to achieve all Israeli interests, most notably the disarmament of the resistance, according to professor of international conflicts, Dr. Ibrahim Freihat.

Highly sensitive stage

The presence of the three American officials in Tel Aviv means – in Freihat’s opinion – that the United States is determined to implement the agreement despite the attempts of Netanyahu – who is wanted by the International Criminal Court – to disrupt it during the past days.

Therefore, the Palestinian factions must prepare themselves well for the upcoming negotiations, which will often focus on disarmament and international force, two issues that require serious work to achieve the interests of the Palestinians, in the opinion of Freihat, who believes that Trump’s talk about disarmament is “empty talk.”

However, Freihat says that the American talk may mean a desire to divide the Strip into two halves, one under the control of Israel and the other under the authority of Hamas.

Franco responded to these words by saying that Hamas agreed to disarm in the agreement, and that it would be faced with force if it did not adhere to what it agreed to because Washington would not allow the formation of armed groups in Gaza again.

Aside from this dispute, what is currently happening – in the opinion of expert on Israeli affairs Dr. Muhannad Mustafa – is that the United States has restricted Israel’s ability to sabotage the agreement, and has redefined its supposed interests.

Not returning to war after the killing of two Israeli soldiers in the city of Rafah, south of the Gaza Strip, “represented a painful blow to Netanyahu,” according to Mustafa, who stressed that the United States alone prevented him from returning to war after this incident.

Because of this American position, Mustafa believes that Israel currently “fears that its influence on central matters in the second phase of the agreement will decrease, or that the situation will remain as it is now, because this means giving Hamas the opportunity to rebuild itself.”

Israel also fears moving to the second phase without guaranteeing its interests related to disarmament, reconstruction, and the nature of the participants in the stabilization force.

Even the issue of disarmament is a matter of dispute in definition, because in Israel’s view it means the destruction of resistance tunnels and not the disarmament of personal weapons or missiles, because failure to eliminate this basic military infrastructure “means Netanyahu’s failure to achieve a major goal of the war,” Mustafa says.

Given these complications, the Palestinians currently fear that the occupation forces will continue to remain in half of the Gaza Strip and not operate the crossings, after they became certain that Netanyahu is not willing to continue the agreement, according to the director of the Palestinian Information Corporation, Ibrahim Al-Madhoun.

The resistance is also aware of the sensitivity of the current stage because it knows that the goal of the second stage is to dismantle its weapons without presenting any future political project for the sector.

Because Israel’s commitment to what it agreed to in the first stage was bad, the second stage may be worse, in the view of Al-Madhoun, who believes that it is difficult to move forward with the agreement without committing the Israeli side to what was agreed upon.