Friday marks six months since a ceasefire took effect in Gaza, ending the most intense fighting between Israeli forces and Hamas-led militants in the Palestinian territory of 2 million people. The milestone comes as international attention has shifted to a new conflict involving Iran and questions about regional stability.

Despite the reduction in heavy fighting, conditions in Gaza remain challenging. Most residents continue living in tent camps or damaged buildings, with limited aid entering through a single Israeli-controlled border crossing. According to Gaza's Health Ministry, Israeli attacks have killed 738 people in the six months since the ceasefire began, with the ministry citing ceasefire violations as triggers for continued strikes.

Humanitarian organizations report deteriorating conditions, particularly since the Iran conflict began. Five international aid groups released a scorecard Thursday indicating that truck deliveries to Gaza declined by 80% during the first two weeks of March, while prices for basic goods increased dramatically. Medical evacuations have also stalled during this period.

The ceasefire agreement's broader objectives remain unfulfilled. Key issues including Hamas disarmament, ending the group's governance of Gaza, deploying an international stabilization force, and beginning reconstruction efforts have seen little progress. A U.S.-created Board of Peace, which initially received $7 billion in pledges, has not met since shortly after its formation.

The new Iran conflict has created additional complications for regional diplomacy. A two-week ceasefire in that war has generated confusion over Lebanon, with Israel and Iran disagreeing on whether the agreement applies there. Israel announced Thursday it would begin direct negotiations with Lebanon despite the absence of formal diplomatic ties.

With regional mediators Egypt and Qatar now focused on the Iran conflict's economic effects, diplomatic pressure for Gaza ceasefire implementation has decreased. Humanitarian groups noted that progress on aid issues has historically required sustained high-level diplomatic pressure, particularly from the United States, but such pressure has not been applied consistently at the needed scale.