🔗 Share this article

These days showcase a very distinctive phenomenon: the first-ever US procession of the overseers. They vary in their skills and traits, but they all share the common objective – to avert an Israeli violation, or even devastation, of Gaza’s delicate ceasefire. After the conflict concluded, there have been few occasions without at least one of Donald Trump’s representatives on the territory. Just recently saw the presence of Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, a senator and a political figure – all appearing to carry out their roles.

Israel occupies their time. In only a few days it executed a set of attacks in the region after the deaths of two Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops – leading, based on accounts, in scores of local injuries. A number of ministers urged a renewal of the war, and the Israeli parliament passed a preliminary decision to incorporate the West Bank. The American reaction was somehow ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

Yet in several ways, the American government seems more intent on upholding the current, uneasy stage of the truce than on advancing to the following: the rebuilding of the Gaza Strip. Regarding that, it appears the United States may have aspirations but no concrete strategies.

Currently, it remains uncertain when the proposed international governing body will effectively assume control, and the similar is true for the designated security force – or even the composition of its personnel. On a recent day, Vance said the US would not impose the structure of the foreign force on the Israeli government. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s government keeps to reject one alternative after another – as it did with the Turkish offer lately – what follows? There is also the opposite question: who will establish whether the troops preferred by the Israelis are even willing in the assignment?

The issue of how long it will require to demilitarize the militant group is just as vague. “The expectation in the government is that the international security force is intends to at this point assume responsibility in disarming Hamas,” said the official this week. “That’s will require some time.” Trump only highlighted the ambiguity, stating in an interview a few days ago that there is no “hard” deadline for Hamas to lay down arms. So, theoretically, the unnamed elements of this still unformed international force could enter the territory while the organization's fighters continue to remain in control. Are they confronting a governing body or a guerrilla movement? These are just a few of the questions surfacing. Some might ask what the outcome will be for ordinary civilians in the present situation, with the group persisting to focus on its own opponents and dissidents.

Latest events have afresh underscored the blind spots of Israeli reporting on the two sides of the Gaza frontier. Every publication attempts to scrutinize each potential aspect of Hamas’s violations of the peace. And, usually, the situation that the organization has been hindering the return of the bodies of deceased Israeli hostages has dominated the headlines.

On the other hand, reporting of civilian deaths in Gaza resulting from Israeli attacks has received scant attention – if any. Take the Israeli response actions after Sunday’s southern Gaza event, in which a pair of troops were fatally wounded. While local sources stated dozens of casualties, Israeli television commentators questioned the “limited response,” which hit just infrastructure.

That is not new. During the previous few days, the information bureau alleged Israeli forces of infringing the peace with the group multiple times since the truce came into effect, causing the death of dozens of individuals and wounding another many more. The allegation seemed insignificant to most Israeli media outlets – it was simply missing. This applied to information that eleven members of a Palestinian family were lost their lives by Israeli forces a few days ago.

The civil defence agency stated the family had been attempting to return to their residence in the Zeitoun district of the city when the bus they were in was fired upon for allegedly crossing the “boundary” that demarcates zones under Israeli military control. That boundary is invisible to the naked eye and is visible just on maps and in authoritative papers – sometimes not available to average individuals in the region.

Even that incident hardly got a note in Israeli journalism. Channel 13 News referred to it briefly on its website, citing an Israeli military spokesperson who stated that after a suspect car was spotted, forces fired warning shots towards it, “but the car persisted to move toward the troops in a way that posed an imminent threat to them. The forces engaged to eliminate the threat, in line with the truce.” No casualties were claimed.

Amid such framing, it is little wonder many Israeli citizens feel Hamas exclusively is to blame for violating the truce. That view could lead to fuelling appeals for a tougher strategy in the region.

Eventually – maybe sooner rather than later – it will no longer be sufficient for American representatives to take on the role of caretakers, advising Israel what to refrain from. They will {have to|need