- February 14, 2026
- 1:35 pm
- Middle East
The statement by the High Representative of the ‘Peace Council’ Nikolay Mladenov in Munich sounded like an attempt to hold together a structure that is bursting at the seams. The formula is simple: if the second stage of the American plan is not implemented, hostilities in Gaza will resume.
But behind diplomatic caution lies a much harsher logic. To move forward, the main obstacle must be removed — the armed structures that continue to control the territory.
And here begins real politics, not conference formulas.
What exactly does Mladenov propose
Technocrats’ power — only after silence
According to the diplomat, the sector should be governed by a transitional government of specialists under international supervision. Such a cabinet will be able to deal with reconstruction, humanitarian tasks, and the economy.
However, he emphasizes, sending technocrats there is pointless if the ceasefire continues to be violated. In this case, the new body will simply lose legitimacy and become yet another episode of failure.
The signal is clear: first security, then administration.
Who should lay down arms
In the account given by journalists after the speech, Mladenov spoke more broadly than just about Hamas. Disarmament, he said, should affect all groups — including ‘Islamic Jihad’ and any structures with rockets, tunnels, and production capabilities.
Only under such a scenario, he claims, will Israel be able to withdraw troops, and large-scale reconstruction will have a chance to start.
The phrase ‘there is no other way if we do not want a resumption of war’ sounded central.
Where the main knot arises
Disarmament without consent
The problem is that the demand for disarmament sounds logical on paper and almost impossible on the ground without the use of force. Hamas does not show readiness to voluntarily give up control and weapons.
Therefore, a gap arises between the ‘second stage’ and reality.
If the elimination of armed structures is necessary to move forward, and the structures themselves are against it, the issue automatically shifts from diplomatic to military. This is the dilemma currently being discussed by analysts and editorial offices closely monitoring the development of Israeli strategy and international initiatives. In publications by NAnews — Israel News | Nikk.Agency it has been repeatedly emphasized: any plan ignoring the issue of force control sooner or later leads back to operations.
Ceasefire as a condition, not a result
Mladenov insists: ceasefire violations must stop. At the same time, he avoids directly indicating who is responsible, limiting himself to a general call for restraint.
Such language is familiar to international diplomacy. But in practice, Israel assesses the situation differently: as long as groups have rockets and infrastructure, any ceasefire is perceived as a temporary pause.
International component and its limits
Who is ready to send forces
The idea of international presence was discussed separately. So far, specifics are modest: only a few states have expressed readiness to participate, and the process of forming such a mission remains complex.
Mladenov, meanwhile, emphasized something else — the creation of new Palestinian security forces. In his opinion, they should play a key role in stabilization, not external contingents.
Realism versus expectations
In Munich, big words about the future of the region are often heard. But the current configuration remains rigid: Israel demands the elimination of the military threat, Hamas is not ready to capitulate, and international players are trying to find a formula that will avoid a new round.
Against this backdrop, the statement that without moving to the next stage, the war will return, looks not like a forecast, but a description of an almost inevitable trajectory.
The paradox is that the transition to the second stage itself may also require war.
And it is with this contradiction that diplomats will now have to live.
