🔗 Share this article

Thhese days present a quite unique situation: the pioneering US parade of the caretakers. Their attributes range in their qualifications and characteristics, but they all have the identical mission – to avert an Israeli infringement, or even demolition, of Gaza’s fragile ceasefire. Since the hostilities ended, there have been rare occasions without at least one of Donald Trump’s representatives on the ground. Just this past week featured the presence of a senior advisor, Steve Witkoff, JD Vance and Marco Rubio – all arriving to carry out their duties.

Israel engages them fully. In only a few days it initiated a set of attacks in Gaza after the loss of a pair of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) personnel – leading, according to reports, in many of Palestinian casualties. Several officials called for a resumption of the war, and the Knesset enacted a initial decision to incorporate the occupied territories. The US response was somehow ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

Yet in more than one sense, the US leadership seems more concentrated on preserving the current, uneasy phase of the peace than on moving to the next: the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. Concerning this, it seems the US may have ambitions but no tangible strategies.

Currently, it remains unknown at what point the proposed international administrative entity will truly begin operating, and the same is true for the appointed security force – or even the composition of its personnel. On Tuesday, Vance stated the United States would not impose the structure of the international contingent on the Israeli government. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet keeps to reject multiple options – as it did with the Turkish proposal recently – what occurs next? There is also the reverse issue: who will determine whether the troops preferred by the Israelis are even willing in the mission?

The question of the timeframe it will require to neutralize Hamas is just as ambiguous. “Our hope in the government is that the global peacekeeping unit is going to at this point take charge in demilitarizing Hamas,” stated the official this week. “That’s will require some time.” Trump only emphasized the ambiguity, saying in an conversation on Sunday that there is no “rigid” timeline for the group to disarm. So, in theory, the unnamed elements of this still unformed international force could enter Gaza while Hamas militants still remain in control. Would they be confronting a governing body or a militant faction? These are just a few of the concerns surfacing. Others might question what the verdict will be for everyday civilians in the present situation, with Hamas carrying on to target its own opponents and dissidents.

Current incidents have once again underscored the omissions of Israeli reporting on each side of the Gazan frontier. Each outlet seeks to examine every possible angle of the group's infractions of the ceasefire. And, usually, the situation that the organization has been stalling the return of the remains of slain Israeli hostages has monopolized the news.

By contrast, attention of civilian fatalities in the region stemming from Israeli strikes has obtained little attention – or none. Take the Israeli retaliatory attacks after Sunday’s southern Gaza event, in which two military personnel were lost. While Gaza’s authorities claimed dozens of deaths, Israeli television commentators criticised the “limited response,” which targeted only infrastructure.

This is nothing new. During the previous weekend, the press agency accused Israel of infringing the ceasefire with Hamas 47 occasions since the ceasefire was implemented, killing 38 Palestinians and wounding an additional many more. The claim seemed unimportant to most Israeli reporting – it was just absent. Even information that 11 members of a local family were lost their lives by Israeli forces recently.

The rescue organization reported the group had been trying to go back to their dwelling in the a Gaza City neighbourhood of the city when the transport they were in was targeted for reportedly going over the “demarcation line” that demarcates zones under Israeli army authority. This limit is not visible to the naked eye and shows up only on charts and in authoritative documents – not always available to everyday people in the region.

Even that incident hardly got a note in Israeli journalism. One source mentioned it in passing on its online platform, citing an Israeli military official who stated that after a suspicious transport was spotted, troops fired alerting fire towards it, “but the vehicle kept to move toward the troops in a manner that posed an immediate danger to them. The troops shot to eliminate the threat, in accordance with the agreement.” Zero casualties were claimed.

Amid such framing, it is understandable many Israelis believe the group solely is to responsible for breaking the peace. That belief risks encouraging demands for a more aggressive strategy in the region.

Sooner or later – possibly in the near future – it will no longer be enough for US envoys to play supervisors, instructing the Israeli government what to avoid. They will {have to|need