🔗 Share this article

Thhese times showcase a very unique phenomenon: the inaugural US march of the overseers. Their attributes range in their qualifications and characteristics, but they all possess the same goal – to avert an Israeli breach, or even devastation, of Gaza’s unstable peace agreement. After the conflict concluded, there have been scant days without at least one of the former president's envoys on the ground. Just this past week included the likes of a senior advisor, a businessman, JD Vance and Marco Rubio – all arriving to perform their roles.

Israel keeps them busy. In only a few days it executed a set of strikes in the region after the killings of two Israeli military personnel – leading, according to reports, in scores of Palestinian fatalities. Multiple officials urged a renewal of the war, and the Knesset approved a early resolution to annex the occupied territories. The American response was somehow between “no” and “hell no.”

Yet in several ways, the Trump administration seems more focused on maintaining the existing, tense phase of the peace than on advancing to the subsequent: the rebuilding of the Gaza Strip. Regarding that, it seems the United States may have goals but no specific proposals.

At present, it remains unclear at what point the suggested global administrative entity will effectively take power, and the similar goes for the proposed military contingent – or even the makeup of its personnel. On a recent day, Vance declared the US would not dictate the membership of the international unit on the Israeli government. But if the prime minister's administration persists to reject various proposals – as it acted with the Ankara's offer lately – what occurs next? There is also the contrary question: which party will decide whether the forces supported by Israel are even interested in the mission?

The issue of how long it will take to neutralize Hamas is just as unclear. “The expectation in the leadership is that the multinational troops is going to at this point take charge in demilitarizing Hamas,” remarked the official this week. “It’s may need a while.” Trump further reinforced the lack of clarity, saying in an discussion on Sunday that there is no “hard” deadline for Hamas to disarm. So, hypothetically, the unidentified participants of this still unformed international contingent could enter Gaza while Hamas members still remain in control. Would they be confronting a governing body or a insurgent group? These represent only some of the issues surfacing. Others might wonder what the outcome will be for everyday Palestinians as things stand, with the group continuing to focus on its own adversaries and opposition.

Latest events have once again underscored the gaps of Israeli journalism on the two sides of the Gazan frontier. Each source attempts to scrutinize all conceivable angle of Hamas’s violations of the ceasefire. And, typically, the situation that Hamas has been stalling the repatriation of the bodies of deceased Israeli hostages has taken over the headlines.

Conversely, coverage of non-combatant casualties in Gaza stemming from Israeli operations has garnered minimal focus – if at all. Consider the Israeli retaliatory strikes in the wake of Sunday’s Rafah occurrence, in which two soldiers were fatally wounded. While local sources stated 44 deaths, Israeli media commentators criticised the “moderate response,” which targeted only infrastructure.

This is nothing new. Over the previous few days, the information bureau alleged Israeli forces of breaking the truce with the group multiple times since the agreement was implemented, causing the death of 38 individuals and injuring another 143. The allegation was insignificant to the majority of Israeli media outlets – it was simply ignored. Even reports that 11 members of a Palestinian family were killed by Israeli forces a few days ago.

The emergency services stated the family had been trying to return to their home in the Zeitoun district of Gaza City when the vehicle they were in was targeted for allegedly passing the “yellow line” that marks territories under Israeli army authority. This limit is unseen to the naked eye and is visible just on charts and in authoritative documents – not always obtainable to everyday residents in the area.

Even this occurrence hardly received a mention in Israeli news outlets. A major outlet referred to it in passing on its online platform, quoting an Israeli military spokesperson who said that after a suspicious vehicle was identified, soldiers discharged cautionary rounds towards it, “but the transport persisted to approach the soldiers in a way that posed an immediate danger to them. The soldiers shot to remove the risk, in accordance with the ceasefire.” No fatalities were claimed.

Amid this perspective, it is little wonder numerous Israelis feel Hamas exclusively is to blame for breaking the truce. This perception risks prompting calls for a stronger stance in the region.

Sooner or later – maybe in the near future – it will no longer be enough for US envoys to act as caretakers, advising the Israeli government what to refrain from. They will {have to|need