🔗 Share this article

These times exhibit a quite unusual phenomenon: the inaugural US parade of the caretakers. Their attributes range in their skills and attributes, but they all have the same objective – to stop an Israeli breach, or even demolition, of Gaza’s unstable peace agreement. Since the conflict concluded, there have been scant occasions without at least one of Donald Trump’s delegates on the scene. Only recently saw the presence of a senior advisor, Steve Witkoff, JD Vance and a political figure – all coming to carry out their duties.

The Israeli government engages them fully. In only a few days it launched a series of attacks in Gaza after the loss of a pair of Israeli military troops – leading, according to reports, in many of local injuries. Multiple leaders called for a renewal of the conflict, and the Israeli parliament enacted a preliminary resolution to annex the West Bank. The US stance was somewhere between “no” and “hell no.”

But in more than one sense, the American government seems more focused on maintaining the existing, uneasy period of the truce than on progressing to the following: the rebuilding of the Gaza Strip. Regarding this, it seems the US may have ambitions but no concrete proposals.

For now, it is unclear when the planned multinational oversight committee will truly begin operating, and the same is true for the designated military contingent – or even the composition of its members. On a recent day, a US official declared the United States would not dictate the membership of the international unit on the Israeli government. But if the prime minister's government continues to dismiss multiple options – as it acted with the Turkish suggestion recently – what follows? There is also the opposite question: which party will determine whether the forces favoured by Israel are even interested in the task?

The issue of how long it will need to demilitarize the militant group is equally ambiguous. “The aim in the administration is that the global peacekeeping unit is intends to at this point take the lead in demilitarizing the organization,” said Vance lately. “It’s going to take a period.” The former president only highlighted the ambiguity, stating in an interview on Sunday that there is no “fixed” timeline for Hamas to disarm. So, in theory, the unidentified participants of this not yet established global contingent could enter the territory while Hamas militants continue to hold power. Would they be facing a governing body or a militant faction? These represent only some of the questions arising. Some might wonder what the verdict will be for everyday Palestinians in the present situation, with Hamas continuing to target its own opponents and opposition.

Current developments have yet again highlighted the omissions of local media coverage on each side of the Gaza frontier. Every source strives to scrutinize all conceivable angle of the group's violations of the truce. And, usually, the fact that Hamas has been hindering the repatriation of the remains of slain Israeli captives has monopolized the headlines.

On the other hand, attention of non-combatant casualties in Gaza resulting from Israeli strikes has garnered minimal attention – if at all. Consider the Israeli counter attacks after a recent Rafah occurrence, in which a pair of troops were fatally wounded. While Gaza’s officials claimed 44 casualties, Israeli television pundits questioned the “limited response,” which hit solely installations.

That is nothing new. Over the past weekend, Gaza’s information bureau alleged Israel of infringing the peace with the group 47 times after the ceasefire began, killing dozens of individuals and injuring an additional 143. The claim appeared insignificant to the majority of Israeli media outlets – it was just absent. This applied to reports that eleven individuals of a local household were fatally shot by Israeli troops last Friday.

The emergency services reported the group had been seeking to return to their dwelling in the a Gaza City neighbourhood of Gaza City when the vehicle they were in was targeted for allegedly crossing the “yellow line” that marks areas under Israeli military control. This limit is not visible to the human eye and appears solely on charts and in government records – not always accessible to ordinary residents in the region.

Even that event scarcely received a reference in Israeli media. One source mentioned it shortly on its website, quoting an IDF spokesperson who explained that after a suspect vehicle was identified, troops shot alerting fire towards it, “but the car kept to approach the forces in a way that posed an direct danger to them. The forces shot to neutralize the threat, in accordance with the agreement.” Zero casualties were stated.

Given this narrative, it is little wonder a lot of Israelis feel the group exclusively is to blame for breaking the truce. That perception could lead to fuelling demands for a stronger stance in the region.

Eventually – perhaps sooner than expected – it will no longer be adequate for all the president’s men to take on the role of supervisors, advising Israel what to refrain from. They will {have to|need