🔗 Share this article

Thhese days present a very unique occurrence: the inaugural US procession of the babysitters. They vary in their qualifications and attributes, but they all possess the same mission – to avert an Israeli breach, or even demolition, of the unstable peace agreement. Since the hostilities finished, there have been few occasions without at least one of Donald Trump’s envoys on the territory. Only in the last few days featured the arrival of Jared Kushner, a businessman, a senator and Marco Rubio – all arriving to perform their assignments.

The Israeli government engages them fully. In just a few short period it launched a wave of attacks in Gaza after the deaths of a pair of Israeli military soldiers – resulting, based on accounts, in many of Palestinian fatalities. Several leaders called for a restart of the fighting, and the Israeli parliament enacted a early decision to annex the West Bank. The American stance was somewhere between “no” and “hell no.”

However in several ways, the US leadership appears more concentrated on preserving the current, uneasy phase of the truce than on moving to the next: the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. When it comes to this, it appears the US may have goals but no tangible strategies.

Currently, it remains uncertain when the planned global governing body will effectively assume control, and the same is true for the proposed peacekeeping troops – or even the makeup of its soldiers. On a recent day, Vance said the United States would not dictate the composition of the foreign force on the Israeli government. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s government continues to dismiss various proposals – as it acted with the Turkish proposal lately – what occurs next? There is also the opposite issue: who will decide whether the forces favoured by Israel are even willing in the assignment?

The matter of how long it will require to neutralize the militant group is similarly unclear. “The expectation in the leadership is that the global peacekeeping unit is will at this point assume responsibility in neutralizing Hamas,” said the official this week. “It’s may need a while.” The former president further highlighted the ambiguity, declaring in an discussion a few days ago that there is no “fixed” schedule for Hamas to disarm. So, theoretically, the unidentified participants of this not yet established international contingent could arrive in Gaza while the organization's members continue to hold power. Would they be confronting a governing body or a militant faction? These are just a few of the issues arising. Some might question what the outcome will be for everyday Palestinians under current conditions, with the group continuing to attack its own adversaries and opposition.

Current incidents have yet again highlighted the omissions of Israeli media coverage on both sides of the Gazan border. Every outlet seeks to scrutinize each potential aspect of the group's breaches of the truce. And, typically, the fact that the organization has been stalling the return of the bodies of deceased Israeli hostages has dominated the headlines.

By contrast, reporting of civilian fatalities in Gaza caused by Israeli operations has obtained little attention – or none. Consider the Israeli retaliatory strikes following a recent Rafah incident, in which a pair of military personnel were fatally wounded. While Gaza’s officials claimed dozens of casualties, Israeli media commentators questioned the “light reaction,” which hit solely infrastructure.

This is nothing new. During the past weekend, Gaza’s media office alleged Israel of violating the truce with the group multiple occasions after the truce was implemented, resulting in the loss of 38 individuals and harming an additional many more. The claim was irrelevant to most Israeli reporting – it was simply ignored. This applied to information that eleven members of a Palestinian household were fatally shot by Israeli forces last Friday.

The rescue organization said the family had been trying to return to their home in the Zeitoun area of Gaza City when the bus they were in was attacked for allegedly passing the “demarcation line” that marks territories under Israeli military control. This boundary is unseen to the ordinary view and shows up solely on plans and in authoritative records – often not available to ordinary people in the territory.

Yet that occurrence scarcely got a mention in Israeli media. Channel 13 News referred to it shortly on its digital site, citing an IDF spokesperson who explained that after a suspect vehicle was spotted, troops shot alerting fire towards it, “but the transport continued to advance on the soldiers in a way that created an direct danger to them. The soldiers shot to neutralize the risk, in line with the agreement.” No injuries were reported.

Given such framing, it is understandable a lot of Israeli citizens believe the group solely is to at fault for breaking the ceasefire. This view threatens prompting calls for a stronger strategy in the region.

Eventually – possibly sooner rather than later – it will not be adequate for US envoys to take on the role of supervisors, advising the Israeli government what to avoid. They will {have to|need