🔗 Share this article

Thhese times exhibit a quite unusual occurrence: the inaugural US march of the babysitters. Their attributes range in their skills and characteristics, but they all possess the same objective – to prevent an Israeli breach, or even destruction, of Gaza’s fragile truce. Since the hostilities ended, there have been few days without at least one of the former president's representatives on the scene. Only recently included the likes of a senior advisor, Steve Witkoff, a senator and a political figure – all appearing to carry out their duties.

Israel keeps them busy. In only a few days it executed a series of attacks in the region after the loss of two Israel Defense Forces (IDF) personnel – leading, as reported, in scores of Palestinian injuries. Several ministers called for a restart of the conflict, and the Knesset enacted a initial decision to take over the West Bank. The US stance was somewhere between “no” and “hell no.”

But in various respects, the Trump administration seems more intent on upholding the present, unstable period of the ceasefire than on advancing to the next: the reconstruction of Gaza. When it comes to that, it seems the United States may have aspirations but no concrete plans.

Currently, it is unknown when the suggested multinational governing body will effectively begin operating, and the similar applies to the designated peacekeeping troops – or even the composition of its soldiers. On a recent day, a US official said the US would not force the composition of the international contingent on Israel. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration keeps to dismiss various proposals – as it did with the Ankara's proposal recently – what follows? There is also the opposite point: which party will determine whether the troops favoured by the Israelis are even prepared in the task?

The question of how long it will need to neutralize Hamas is similarly unclear. “Our hope in the administration is that the international security force is going to now assume responsibility in demilitarizing Hamas,” remarked Vance this week. “It’s will require a while.” Trump only highlighted the ambiguity, stating in an interview recently that there is no “fixed” schedule for the group to demilitarize. So, in theory, the unnamed members of this yet-to-be-formed global force could deploy to the territory while the organization's members still remain in control. Would they be confronting a governing body or a guerrilla movement? These are just a few of the concerns surfacing. Others might question what the verdict will be for average civilians under current conditions, with the group persisting to target its own opponents and dissidents.

Latest incidents have yet again highlighted the omissions of local media coverage on each side of the Gaza border. Each outlet attempts to analyze every possible perspective of Hamas’s violations of the peace. And, in general, the reality that the organization has been stalling the repatriation of the remains of killed Israeli hostages has monopolized the news.

By contrast, coverage of civilian fatalities in the region stemming from Israeli operations has obtained little notice – if at all. Consider the Israeli response actions after Sunday’s Rafah event, in which a pair of troops were killed. While local sources reported 44 casualties, Israeli news commentators criticised the “limited response,” which targeted solely infrastructure.

That is not new. During the previous few days, Gaza’s information bureau accused Israeli forces of breaking the ceasefire with the group multiple occasions since the truce was implemented, killing 38 Palestinians and wounding an additional 143. The assertion was irrelevant to most Israeli reporting – it was merely ignored. This applied to information that 11 individuals of a local household were fatally shot by Israeli troops recently.

The rescue organization reported the family had been seeking to return to their residence in the a Gaza City area of the city when the transport they were in was fired upon for supposedly going over the “demarcation line” that marks zones under Israeli army command. This boundary is unseen to the human eye and appears only on charts and in government papers – sometimes not accessible to everyday residents in the territory.

Yet that event hardly got a reference in Israeli news outlets. One source referred to it briefly on its online platform, citing an Israeli military spokesperson who explained that after a questionable vehicle was detected, forces shot alerting fire towards it, “but the car kept to approach the forces in a way that posed an imminent risk to them. The troops shot to neutralize the risk, in accordance with the agreement.” No fatalities were stated.

Amid such framing, it is little wonder many Israeli citizens think Hamas alone is to responsible for infringing the ceasefire. This view threatens fuelling calls for a stronger strategy in Gaza.

Eventually – perhaps sooner than expected – it will not be adequate for American representatives to take on the role of supervisors, advising Israel what not to do. They will {have to|need