🔗 Share this article

These times showcase a very unusual phenomenon: the pioneering US procession of the babysitters. They vary in their skills and attributes, but they all possess the identical goal – to stop an Israeli infringement, or even demolition, of Gaza’s fragile ceasefire. Since the hostilities finished, there have been few days without at least one of the former president's envoys on the territory. Just recently featured the likes of a senior advisor, a businessman, JD Vance and Marco Rubio – all appearing to carry out their assignments.

The Israeli government engages them fully. In only a few short period it initiated a wave of attacks in the region after the killings of two Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops – resulting, as reported, in scores of Palestinian injuries. Multiple ministers demanded a resumption of the fighting, and the Knesset approved a early resolution to incorporate the occupied territories. The US reaction was somewhere between “no” and “hell no.”

But in various respects, the US leadership appears more focused on preserving the existing, tense stage of the ceasefire than on moving to the subsequent: the reconstruction of Gaza. Regarding this, it seems the US may have ambitions but little concrete strategies.

For now, it is uncertain when the suggested global oversight committee will truly begin operating, and the identical applies to the proposed peacekeeping troops – or even the identity of its soldiers. On a recent day, Vance declared the US would not impose the membership of the international force on Israel. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet continues to reject one alternative after another – as it did with the Turkish suggestion this week – what follows? There is also the reverse point: which party will decide whether the units supported by the Israelis are even willing in the task?

The matter of how long it will require to neutralize the militant group is similarly unclear. “The aim in the administration is that the global peacekeeping unit is going to at this point take the lead in neutralizing the organization,” remarked the official this week. “It’s may need some time.” Trump only emphasized the lack of clarity, saying in an interview recently that there is no “rigid” schedule for the group to disarm. So, in theory, the unnamed participants of this yet-to-be-formed international contingent could enter Gaza while the organization's militants still wield influence. Are they facing a leadership or a guerrilla movement? These represent only some of the concerns surfacing. Others might question what the result will be for ordinary civilians in the present situation, with Hamas continuing to target its own adversaries and opposition.

Current events have afresh underscored the blind spots of local media coverage on both sides of the Gazan frontier. Every outlet attempts to scrutinize all conceivable aspect of Hamas’s violations of the truce. And, typically, the fact that Hamas has been hindering the return of the remains of deceased Israeli captives has taken over the headlines.

Conversely, coverage of civilian casualties in the region stemming from Israeli strikes has received little focus – if any. Consider the Israeli retaliatory attacks following a recent southern Gaza event, in which two soldiers were fatally wounded. While local authorities stated 44 deaths, Israeli television commentators criticised the “limited answer,” which hit only installations.

That is typical. During the previous few days, the media office charged Israel of violating the peace with the group multiple occasions since the truce came into effect, resulting in the loss of dozens of Palestinians and wounding another many more. The claim seemed irrelevant to most Israeli news programmes – it was just missing. This applied to information that eleven members of a Palestinian household were fatally shot by Israeli forces recently.

Gaza’s emergency services reported the group had been seeking to go back to their home in the a Gaza City area of the city when the bus they were in was targeted for supposedly passing the “yellow line” that demarcates zones under Israeli army command. That boundary is invisible to the human eye and is visible only on plans and in government records – sometimes not obtainable to ordinary residents in the area.

Yet that incident barely rated a mention in Israeli news outlets. A major outlet covered it shortly on its website, quoting an Israeli military representative who stated that after a questionable vehicle was detected, troops discharged alerting fire towards it, “but the transport persisted to approach the troops in a fashion that caused an imminent risk to them. The troops engaged to remove the risk, in line with the truce.” Zero casualties were reported.

With this perspective, it is no surprise a lot of Israeli citizens feel the group alone is to at fault for infringing the truce. This perception risks encouraging demands for a stronger stance in the region.

Eventually – perhaps in the near future – it will no longer be adequate for all the president’s men to act as supervisors, telling the Israeli government what to refrain from. They will {have to|need