🔗 Share this article

These times present a quite unusual situation: the inaugural US procession of the overseers. Their qualifications differ in their qualifications and traits, but they all have the common goal – to prevent an Israeli violation, or even devastation, of Gaza’s delicate truce. Since the conflict ended, there have been scant days without at least one of the former president's delegates on the scene. Only recently included the likes of Jared Kushner, a businessman, JD Vance and a political figure – all appearing to carry out their duties.

The Israeli government engages them fully. In only a few days it executed a series of attacks in the region after the deaths of a pair of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops – leading, based on accounts, in scores of Palestinian casualties. A number of ministers called for a resumption of the fighting, and the Israeli parliament enacted a preliminary resolution to annex the West Bank. The US response was somehow between “no” and “hell no.”

Yet in several ways, the Trump administration appears more intent on maintaining the present, tense phase of the truce than on moving to the following: the rehabilitation of Gaza. When it comes to this, it seems the US may have ambitions but little concrete proposals.

At present, it is unknown at what point the suggested multinational governing body will effectively begin operating, and the identical is true for the appointed security force – or even the composition of its members. On a recent day, a US official stated the United States would not dictate the membership of the international force on the Israeli government. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet continues to reject various proposals – as it did with the Turkish proposal recently – what occurs next? There is also the opposite point: who will determine whether the units preferred by the Israelis are even prepared in the task?

The issue of the timeframe it will need to demilitarize Hamas is equally unclear. “The expectation in the administration is that the international security force is will now assume responsibility in disarming the organization,” stated Vance this week. “It’s will require some time.” Trump further highlighted the ambiguity, saying in an interview a few days ago that there is no “fixed” deadline for Hamas to lay down arms. So, in theory, the unknown members of this still unformed international contingent could arrive in the territory while the organization's militants continue to remain in control. Are they confronting a administration or a insurgent group? These are just a few of the concerns arising. Others might question what the result will be for everyday Palestinians in the present situation, with the group persisting to attack its own opponents and opposition.

Current developments have yet again highlighted the gaps of Israeli journalism on each side of the Gaza boundary. Every publication seeks to scrutinize every possible angle of Hamas’s infractions of the ceasefire. And, usually, the fact that Hamas has been stalling the return of the bodies of killed Israeli hostages has dominated the headlines.

On the other hand, attention of civilian casualties in the region stemming from Israeli strikes has garnered minimal notice – if any. Take the Israeli response attacks in the wake of Sunday’s Rafah incident, in which two military personnel were killed. While Gaza’s sources reported dozens of deaths, Israeli television analysts complained about the “light response,” which hit only installations.

This is nothing new. During the past weekend, the media office accused Israeli forces of violating the truce with Hamas 47 times after the agreement began, resulting in the loss of 38 individuals and injuring another many more. The assertion was irrelevant to the majority of Israeli reporting – it was just ignored. This applied to accounts that 11 members of a local family were killed by Israeli forces last Friday.

The civil defence agency said the group had been trying to return to their dwelling in the Zeitoun district 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 control. This boundary is unseen to the human eye and appears only on maps and in authoritative papers – sometimes not available to average individuals in the area.

Yet that incident scarcely received a mention in Israeli media. One source covered it briefly on its digital site, referencing an IDF representative who said that after a questionable vehicle was detected, troops shot warning shots towards it, “but the vehicle continued to approach the soldiers in a manner that created an direct danger to them. The soldiers shot to remove the threat, in accordance with the agreement.” No casualties were claimed.

With this narrative, it is understandable a lot of Israelis think Hamas solely is to blame for infringing the peace. This view risks prompting demands for a stronger approach in Gaza.

At some point – possibly in the near future – it will not be enough for all the president’s men to play caretakers, telling Israel what not to do. They will {have to|need