The transition from ceasefire to what the US administration calls “Phase II” of President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan for Gaza has formally begun.
What was once discussed in diplomatic corridors as a hypothetical future is now presented as policy: demilitarization, technocratic governance, and large-scale reconstruction. The postwar phase of Gaza is no longer theoretical. It is underway.
Phase II establishes a transitional technocratic Palestinian administration in Gaza and initiates the process of full demilitarization and reconstruction. The language has shifted decisively from emergency management to governance, from humanitarian containment to long-term regional stabilization.
A new foundation is taking shape. It includes an international Board of Peace, an executive framework led by American leadership, and a technocratic governing body tasked with overseeing Gaza’s recovery. This is a pivotal – and rare – moment, marking the beginning of a new governing phase for Gaza: one defined by competence, accountability, and reconstruction rather than factional rule.
What makes this development historic is not only what it represents, but what it deliberately excludes. The new cabinet is composed of independent Gazan professionals who belong neither to the Palestinian Authority nor to Hamas. They are economists, educators, and engineers – individuals rooted in Gaza’s society and institutions, many of whom lived through the war, endured its consequences, and remained engaged with their communities throughout the most devastating months.
Together, they embody a new governing ethos: civilian, professional, locally anchored, and future-oriented. This is not merely a change of names. It is a structural shift.
Gaza is entering a phase that prioritizes reconstruction over militarization, institutions over factions, service delivery over slogans, economic revival over dependency, and dignity over permanent emergency. The technocratic government is expected to rebuild critical infrastructure, restore public services, stabilize the economy, coordinate humanitarian and development efforts, and prepare the ground for longer-term governance reform and regional integration.
The Phase II announcement by the US also included the appointment of Nickolay Mladenov as the US- and regionally backed coordinator for the Board of Peace and its executive framework. His appointment was welcomed by both Israelis and Palestinians – a rare point of convergence – reflecting the trust he has built across political divides through years of diplomacy. Gaza, more than anything, needs that kind of credibility now.
This moment matters not only for Gaza’s residents, but for Palestinians as a whole. A stable, functional Gaza governed by professionals rather than armed movements is a cornerstone of regional stability and Israeli-Palestinian de-escalation. It is also a prerequisite for credible international engagement – allowing reconstruction funding to be tied to transparency and performance rather than political allegiance or force.
Technocracy without legitimacy
And yet, for all the structural clarity now taking shape, one essential element remains conspicuously absent: a credible, empowered Palestinian representative capable of engaging Israel directly and anchoring this process in political legitimacy and lived reality.
This absence is not procedural. It is existential.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is often analyzed through familiar lenses – borders, security arrangements, diplomatic formulas. But beneath these frameworks lies a deeper struggle: over dignity, agency, and moral recognition. These are not abstractions. They shape daily life, collective memory, and the possibility of coexistence.
As the international community moves into Phase II, it must confront a fundamental truth: reconstruction without representation does not resolve instability – it reproduces it.
At the heart of the conflict lies a profound asymmetry, not only of power, but of experience. For Palestinians, life under occupation, blockade, or displacement is defined by constraint – restricted movement, limited economic horizons, and fragmented political voice.
In such conditions, dignity becomes an act of resilience, and survival itself becomes political. For Israelis, power has brought security and continuity – but also distance. Over time, dominance normalizes itself. Structural inequality fades into the background. Control becomes routine.
This is not a moral indictment of individuals; it is the predictable outcome of prolonged asymmetry. Yet it is precisely this imbalance that any durable peace must confront.
This is why the current moment matters so deeply. The emerging framework for Gaza risks becoming another exercise in technocratic management – rebuilding infrastructure without repairing the political and moral foundations beneath it.
That is why the creation of a senior Palestinian representative for reconciliation and regional cooperation is not optional. It is indispensable.
Such a role would not be symbolic. It would be structural – serving as the connective tissue between international decision-makers and Palestinian society. It would ensure that reconstruction is not imposed, but owned; that lived experience informs policy, and that policy remains accountable to those it affects.
Its responsibilities would be substantive: leading postwar social stabilization and civic renewal; integrating demilitarization, deradicalization, democratization, and development into a coherent political framework; acting as a credible interlocutor with Israel capable of rebuilding trust across deeply eroded lines; and anchoring reconstruction in legitimacy so that international investment strengthens institutions rather than bypassing them.
This role would not replace existing Palestinian institutions, nor compete with them. It would function as a unifying axis – a point of coherence in a fragmented political landscape, and a bridge between diplomacy and daily reality.
President Trump’s renewed engagement has opened a narrow but consequential window. The danger now is not inertia, but misdirection – mistaking speed for substance, or stability for sustainability. Peace cannot be engineered through contracts, security arrangements, or reconstruction budgets alone. It requires moral credibility. It requires representation. It requires leadership capable of speaking across divides without being captured by them.
If Phase II is to succeed, it must begin not with concrete, but with inclusion; not with management alone, but with legitimacy. Only then can reconstruction become more than buildings and balance sheets. Only then can it lay the foundation for dignity, accountability, and a shared future between two peoples whose histories are tragically intertwined – and whose futures, whether they choose it or not, remain inseparable.
The writer is a Fatah political leader from Jerusalem, calling for Palestinian reforms, democracy dialogue, and coexistence with Israel.