🔗 Share this article

These times present a very unusual occurrence: the pioneering US parade of the overseers. They vary in their skills and traits, but they all have the same objective – to stop an Israeli infringement, or even destruction, of the delicate ceasefire. After the hostilities ended, there have been few days without at least one of Donald Trump’s delegates on the ground. Only in the last few days saw the presence of a senior advisor, Steve Witkoff, JD Vance and Marco Rubio – all arriving to perform their duties.

The Israeli government keeps them busy. In only a few short period it executed a set of attacks in the region after the loss of two Israel Defense Forces (IDF) personnel – resulting, according to reports, in scores of Palestinian injuries. A number of officials demanded a restart of the war, and the Israeli parliament passed a preliminary decision to annex the occupied territories. The US reaction was somewhere ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

But in more than one sense, the Trump administration seems more intent on preserving the present, tense stage of the ceasefire than on advancing to the following: the rehabilitation of Gaza. Concerning that, it seems the United States may have aspirations but little specific plans.

Currently, it remains unclear when the suggested multinational governing body will effectively take power, and the similar is true for the proposed military contingent – or even the makeup of its soldiers. On Tuesday, Vance declared the United States would not force the membership of the foreign contingent on the Israeli government. But if the prime minister's government keeps to dismiss one alternative after another – as it acted with the Ankara's offer this week – what occurs next? There is also the contrary question: who will establish whether the units preferred by the Israelis are even prepared in the assignment?

The matter of how long it will need to neutralize the militant group is equally unclear. “The aim in the administration is that the global peacekeeping unit is going to at this point take the lead in demilitarizing Hamas,” remarked Vance recently. “That’s going to take some time.” The former president further highlighted the uncertainty, stating in an interview a few days ago that there is no “hard” deadline for the group to disarm. So, theoretically, the unnamed members of this not yet established global force could enter Gaza while the organization's members still wield influence. Are they facing a governing body or a guerrilla movement? These represent only some of the questions emerging. Some might question what the verdict will be for ordinary civilians under current conditions, with Hamas persisting to attack its own adversaries and critics.

Latest incidents have afresh underscored the blind spots of Israeli reporting on both sides of the Gazan boundary. Each source strives to examine all conceivable perspective of the group's infractions of the peace. And, usually, the situation that Hamas has been stalling the repatriation of the bodies of killed Israeli hostages has dominated the headlines.

By contrast, attention of non-combatant deaths in Gaza resulting from Israeli operations has obtained scant notice – if at all. Consider the Israeli counter actions after Sunday’s Rafah incident, in which a pair of military personnel were lost. While Gaza’s sources reported 44 deaths, Israeli news commentators questioned the “limited reaction,” which focused on just facilities.

This is typical. During the recent weekend, Gaza’s press agency charged Israeli forces of violating the peace with Hamas multiple times since the truce began, causing the death of 38 Palestinians and wounding an additional many more. The claim was irrelevant to the majority of Israeli reporting – it was merely absent. Even accounts that eleven individuals of a Palestinian family were killed by Israeli forces recently.

Gaza’s civil defence agency reported the family had been attempting to return to their residence in the Zeitoun district of Gaza City when the bus they were in was fired upon for supposedly crossing the “boundary” that demarcates territories under Israeli army authority. This yellow line is not visible to the ordinary view and appears solely on charts and in official documents – sometimes not available to ordinary individuals in the area.

Yet this event barely received a mention in Israeli journalism. One source mentioned it briefly on its digital site, citing an Israeli military spokesperson who explained that after a questionable transport was spotted, forces fired cautionary rounds towards it, “but the car kept to advance on the troops in a way that posed an direct risk to them. The forces opened fire to remove the danger, in line with the agreement.” No fatalities were stated.

Amid such narrative, it is no surprise a lot of Israelis believe the group alone is to blame for infringing the ceasefire. That belief could lead to prompting calls for a more aggressive approach in the region.

Eventually – maybe sooner than expected – it will not be enough for US envoys to take on the role of caretakers, telling Israel what to refrain from. They will {have to|need