🔗 Share this article

These times showcase a very distinctive situation: the first-ever US procession of the babysitters. Their qualifications differ in their skills and characteristics, but they all have the identical goal – to prevent an Israeli breach, or even demolition, of Gaza’s fragile peace agreement. After the war concluded, there have been rare days without at least one of Donald Trump’s envoys on the ground. Just in the last few days included the likes of Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, JD Vance and Marco Rubio – all arriving to execute their roles.

Israel occupies their time. In just a few short period it initiated a set of attacks in Gaza after the deaths of a pair of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) personnel – leading, based on accounts, in many of local casualties. Several officials urged a resumption of the war, and the Knesset approved a preliminary decision to incorporate the occupied territories. The American stance was somewhere between “no” and “hell no.”

But in various respects, the American government appears more intent on maintaining the present, uneasy period of the ceasefire than on advancing to the next: the reconstruction of Gaza. Regarding this, it looks the United States may have aspirations but little concrete proposals.

Currently, it remains unclear when the suggested international oversight committee will truly assume control, and the same goes for the appointed peacekeeping troops – or even the makeup of its members. On Tuesday, Vance declared the United States would not impose the composition of the international contingent on Israel. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet keeps to reject multiple options – as it did with the Turkish offer lately – what follows? There is also the reverse issue: which party will decide whether the forces preferred by Israel are even prepared in the task?

The question of the timeframe it will take to neutralize the militant group is equally ambiguous. “The expectation in the leadership is that the global peacekeeping unit is intends to now assume responsibility in demilitarizing the organization,” remarked the official lately. “It’s will require a while.” Trump only emphasized the lack of clarity, saying in an interview a few days ago that there is no “hard” deadline for Hamas to disarm. So, hypothetically, the unnamed members of this still unformed international force could enter the territory while Hamas members continue to remain in control. Are they dealing with a governing body or a militant faction? Among the many of the concerns surfacing. Others might ask what the result will be for everyday residents under current conditions, with Hamas continuing to focus on its own political rivals and critics.

Current incidents have once again emphasized the blind spots of Israeli journalism on the two sides of the Gaza boundary. Every source attempts to examine each potential angle of Hamas’s breaches of the ceasefire. And, usually, the reality that Hamas has been stalling the repatriation of the bodies of deceased Israeli hostages has dominated the coverage.

Conversely, reporting of civilian fatalities in Gaza caused by Israeli attacks has garnered little attention – if any. Consider the Israeli response actions in the wake of Sunday’s Rafah occurrence, in which two troops were lost. While Gaza’s sources stated dozens of casualties, Israeli news pundits criticised the “limited answer,” which hit solely installations.

That is nothing new. During the previous weekend, the press agency accused Israel of violating the ceasefire with the group multiple times after the truce came into effect, resulting in the loss of 38 Palestinians and injuring another 143. The assertion appeared insignificant to the majority of Israeli news programmes – it was merely missing. That included information that eleven individuals of a Palestinian household were killed by Israeli soldiers a few days ago.

The rescue organization said the family had been trying to go back to their dwelling in the a Gaza City area of Gaza City when the vehicle they were in was fired upon for reportedly passing the “yellow line” that marks zones under Israeli army control. That yellow line is unseen to the ordinary view and is visible only on maps and in official papers – often not available to average people in the region.

Even this occurrence hardly rated a mention in Israeli news outlets. A major outlet referred to it briefly on its digital site, quoting an Israeli military spokesperson who said that after a suspicious transport was spotted, forces shot warning shots towards it, “but the transport persisted to advance on the soldiers in a manner that posed an immediate threat to them. The forces opened fire to remove the danger, in accordance with the agreement.” No injuries were claimed.

Given this perspective, it is no surprise numerous Israelis feel the group alone is to at fault for infringing the ceasefire. That view threatens fuelling calls for a more aggressive approach in the region.

Sooner or later – perhaps sooner rather than later – it will not be adequate for American representatives to act as kindergarten teachers, advising Israel what to refrain from. They will {have to|need