🔗 Share this article

These times exhibit a very distinctive phenomenon: the pioneering US parade of the babysitters. Their qualifications differ in their expertise and traits, but they all possess the identical mission – to prevent an Israeli breach, or even demolition, of Gaza’s fragile peace agreement. After the conflict ended, there have been scant days without at least one of Donald Trump’s envoys on the territory. Only in the last few days included the arrival of a senior advisor, Steve Witkoff, a senator and a political figure – all arriving to execute their duties.

The Israeli government keeps them busy. In only a few short period it initiated a wave of strikes in Gaza after the deaths of a pair of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops – leading, according to reports, in scores of local injuries. Several ministers called for a resumption of the fighting, and the Knesset passed a preliminary measure to annex the occupied territories. The US reaction was somehow ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

But in more than one sense, the US leadership appears more focused on preserving the existing, uneasy stage of the truce than on advancing to the subsequent: the rehabilitation of the Gaza Strip. Regarding this, it seems the US may have ambitions but no concrete proposals.

For now, it remains unclear when the planned multinational governing body will truly assume control, and the identical applies to the proposed peacekeeping troops – or even the identity of its members. On a recent day, a US official declared the US would not dictate the composition of the foreign force on Israel. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet persists to refuse one alternative after another – as it did with the Ankara's suggestion this week – what occurs next? There is also the contrary question: who will decide whether the forces favoured by the Israelis are even willing in the mission?

The matter of how long it will take to disarm the militant group is just as vague. “The expectation in the administration is that the international security force is will at this point assume responsibility in disarming the organization,” stated the official this week. “That’s may need a period.” The former president further highlighted the lack of clarity, stating in an discussion recently that there is no “hard” deadline for the group to disarm. So, theoretically, the unnamed members of this still unformed international contingent could enter the territory while Hamas fighters continue to wield influence. Would they be confronting a administration or a militant faction? These represent only some of the issues surfacing. Some might wonder what the result will be for ordinary residents as things stand, with the group carrying on to target its own political rivals and opposition.

Current events have yet again emphasized the gaps of local journalism on each side of the Gazan border. Each outlet seeks to examine all conceivable aspect of Hamas’s breaches of the peace. And, typically, the fact that the organization has been hindering the return of the bodies of deceased Israeli hostages has monopolized the news.

On the other hand, attention of non-combatant casualties in the region caused by Israeli strikes has received minimal notice – if at all. Consider the Israeli retaliatory strikes in the wake of a recent southern Gaza event, in which a pair of military personnel were lost. While Gaza’s officials claimed dozens of fatalities, Israeli news analysts criticised the “moderate response,” which focused on just installations.

This is not new. Over the past few days, the press agency charged Israel of violating the truce with Hamas 47 occasions after the agreement began, causing the death of dozens of individuals and wounding another many more. The assertion seemed irrelevant to the majority of Israeli reporting – it was merely ignored. This applied to accounts that eleven individuals of a Palestinian family were fatally shot by Israeli forces recently.

The civil defence agency stated the individuals had been seeking to return to their dwelling in the a Gaza City district of the city when the vehicle they were in was attacked for supposedly crossing the “demarcation line” that marks zones under Israeli military authority. That yellow line is invisible to the naked eye and shows up only on plans and in government documents – often not accessible to ordinary individuals in the territory.

Even this occurrence scarcely received a reference in Israeli media. A major outlet covered it shortly on its website, referencing an Israeli military spokesperson who explained that after a suspicious transport was identified, soldiers shot alerting fire towards it, “but the vehicle continued to advance on the troops in a way that caused an immediate threat to them. The troops shot to eliminate the danger, in line with the ceasefire.” No injuries were reported.

Amid this narrative, it is little wonder numerous Israeli citizens feel the group alone is to at fault for breaking the truce. This view threatens encouraging demands for a stronger approach in Gaza.

Sooner or later – possibly sooner than expected – it will not be enough for all the president’s men to take on the role of caretakers, instructing Israel what to avoid. They will {have to|need