🔗 Share this article

These times present a very unusual phenomenon: the pioneering US parade of the overseers. Their qualifications differ in their qualifications and characteristics, but they all share the identical goal – to prevent an Israeli violation, or even destruction, of the fragile truce. Since the hostilities ended, there have been few occasions without at least one of the former president's delegates on the ground. Only recently included the likes of a senior advisor, a businessman, JD Vance and Marco Rubio – all coming to carry out their assignments.

Israel occupies their time. In just a few short period it launched a series of attacks in the region after the deaths of two Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops – leading, based on accounts, in scores of Palestinian injuries. Several leaders demanded a resumption of the conflict, and the Knesset enacted a early measure to annex the West Bank. The American response was somehow ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

Yet in various respects, the Trump administration appears more focused on maintaining the existing, unstable stage of the peace than on advancing to the following: the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. When it comes to that, it looks the United States may have goals but little concrete plans.

Currently, it is unclear when the planned global governing body will truly assume control, and the identical applies to the appointed military contingent – or even the composition of its members. On Tuesday, a US official said the United States would not force the structure of the international unit on Israel. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet continues to reject multiple options – as it acted with the Turkish suggestion this week – what follows? There is also the reverse point: which party will establish whether the forces preferred by Israel are even prepared in the mission?

The matter of the duration it will take to demilitarize the militant group is just as ambiguous. “Our hope in the government is that the international security force is going to now assume responsibility in demilitarizing the organization,” stated Vance this week. “That’s will require some time.” Trump only emphasized the lack of clarity, saying in an conversation a few days ago that there is no “fixed” schedule for Hamas to disarm. So, in theory, the unnamed members of this still unformed international contingent could deploy to the territory while the organization's militants continue to hold power. Would they be dealing with a leadership or a insurgent group? These represent only some of the issues surfacing. Others might ask what the verdict will be for average Palestinians under current conditions, with Hamas carrying on to focus on its own adversaries and dissidents.

Latest incidents have afresh emphasized the omissions of local reporting on each side of the Gazan boundary. Every source attempts to analyze every possible angle of Hamas’s breaches of the truce. And, usually, the fact that the organization has been stalling the return of the bodies of deceased Israeli hostages has dominated the news.

By contrast, coverage of civilian casualties in the region caused by Israeli attacks has obtained little attention – or none. Take the Israeli response strikes in the wake of Sunday’s Rafah incident, in which two troops were killed. While Gaza’s sources stated 44 deaths, Israeli news commentators questioned the “light reaction,” which focused on just infrastructure.

This is typical. Over the previous few days, Gaza’s press agency alleged Israeli forces of infringing the peace with Hamas 47 times after the truce came into effect, causing the death of 38 individuals and injuring another 143. The assertion appeared irrelevant to most Israeli reporting – it was just missing. Even information that eleven individuals of a local family were lost their lives by Israeli soldiers a few days ago.

The civil defence agency said the individuals had been trying to go back to their residence in the Zeitoun area of the city when the transport they were in was attacked for supposedly going over the “yellow line” that marks zones under Israeli army authority. This limit is invisible to the naked eye and shows up solely on charts and in official papers – sometimes not accessible to average people in the region.

Even this event hardly got a mention in Israeli media. A major outlet mentioned it in passing on its website, referencing an Israeli military official who explained that after a suspect transport was detected, troops fired cautionary rounds towards it, “but the car kept to approach the troops in a fashion that created an imminent risk to them. The forces engaged to eliminate the threat, in compliance with the ceasefire.” No casualties were claimed.

Given such perspective, it is no surprise numerous Israelis feel the group exclusively is to at fault for infringing the peace. This perception risks fuelling appeals for a stronger stance in the region.

Eventually – maybe sooner rather than later – it will not be sufficient for all the president’s men to act as caretakers, instructing Israel what not to do. They will {have to|need