🔗 Share this article

These days exhibit a very unusual phenomenon: the pioneering US procession of the caretakers. They vary in their expertise and attributes, but they all share the identical objective – to avert an Israeli breach, or even devastation, of the fragile ceasefire. Since the war concluded, there have been scant occasions without at least one of Donald Trump’s representatives on the scene. Just in the last few days saw the arrival of a senior advisor, Steve Witkoff, JD Vance and Marco Rubio – all coming to perform their roles.

The Israeli government engages them fully. In just a few short period it launched a series of operations in Gaza after the deaths of a pair of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops – resulting, as reported, in dozens of Palestinian fatalities. Multiple leaders called for a restart of the war, and the Israeli parliament passed a preliminary resolution to take over the occupied territories. The US stance was somehow ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

However in more than one sense, the US leadership seems more focused on maintaining the present, unstable stage of the peace than on moving to the next: the rehabilitation of the Gaza Strip. Regarding this, it seems the United States may have ambitions but little tangible strategies.

At present, it is unknown when the suggested global oversight committee will effectively take power, and the same applies to the proposed security force – or even the identity of its soldiers. On Tuesday, Vance said the US would not impose the structure of the international contingent on Israel. But if the prime minister's cabinet continues to refuse one alternative after another – as it acted with the Turkish suggestion lately – what follows? There is also the reverse question: which party will determine whether the units favoured by Israel are even prepared in the task?

The issue of the timeframe it will take to demilitarize Hamas is equally unclear. “The expectation in the administration is that the global peacekeeping unit is intends to now take charge in demilitarizing the organization,” stated Vance recently. “It’s will require a while.” The former president further emphasized the ambiguity, stating in an interview on Sunday that there is no “rigid” deadline for Hamas to disarm. So, in theory, the unknown elements of this still unformed global contingent could enter Gaza while Hamas members continue to hold power. Are they confronting a leadership or a insurgent group? These are just a few of the concerns emerging. Others might wonder what the result will be for average Palestinians under current conditions, with the group persisting to attack its own opponents and critics.

Current incidents have once again underscored the gaps of local media coverage on the two sides of the Gaza boundary. Every source attempts to analyze each potential aspect of the group's violations of the ceasefire. And, in general, the fact that Hamas has been stalling the repatriation of the remains of killed Israeli captives has taken over the coverage.

By contrast, reporting of non-combatant casualties in Gaza stemming from Israeli operations has obtained scant focus – if any. Consider the Israeli response strikes following a recent southern Gaza occurrence, in which two soldiers were lost. While Gaza’s sources stated 44 casualties, Israeli television analysts complained about the “limited reaction,” which hit only installations.

This is nothing new. Over the recent weekend, Gaza’s media office charged Israeli forces of breaking the peace with Hamas multiple times since the truce came into effect, resulting in the loss of dozens of individuals and injuring another 143. The claim seemed irrelevant to most Israeli news programmes – it was just ignored. That included reports that 11 individuals of a local family were fatally shot by Israeli forces a few days ago.

Gaza’s civil defence agency reported the individuals had been seeking to go back to their home in the Zeitoun neighbourhood of the city when the transport they were in was targeted for supposedly passing the “demarcation line” that demarcates areas under Israeli army command. This boundary is unseen to the naked eye and is visible just on maps and in government papers – not always available to everyday residents in the area.

Yet that occurrence hardly received a mention in Israeli journalism. Channel 13 News mentioned it shortly on its digital site, quoting an Israeli military representative who stated that after a suspicious transport was spotted, forces discharged alerting fire towards it, “but the transport kept to move toward the forces in a way that caused an immediate threat to them. The troops opened fire to eliminate the risk, in line with the agreement.” No injuries were claimed.

With such framing, it is no surprise a lot of Israeli citizens feel the group exclusively is to blame for breaking the peace. That view risks encouraging demands for a stronger strategy in Gaza.

Eventually – maybe sooner than expected – it will not be adequate for US envoys to act as supervisors, telling Israel what to avoid. They will {have to|need