🔗 Share this article

Thhese times present a very distinctive phenomenon: the inaugural US procession of the overseers. Their qualifications differ in their skills and attributes, but they all possess the common mission – to stop an Israeli breach, or even devastation, of the delicate peace agreement. Since the war ended, there have been rare occasions without at least one of Donald Trump’s representatives on the ground. Just this past week saw the arrival of Jared Kushner, a businessman, a senator and a political figure – all arriving to perform their duties.

The Israeli government occupies their time. In only a few short period it executed a set of operations in Gaza after the loss of a pair of Israeli military personnel – resulting, as reported, in many of local injuries. Multiple officials called for a resumption of the fighting, and the Knesset enacted a preliminary resolution to incorporate the West Bank. The US reaction was somewhere ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

Yet in various respects, the Trump administration appears more focused on preserving the existing, tense stage of the peace than on advancing to the next: the rehabilitation of the Gaza Strip. When it comes to this, it seems the US may have aspirations but little specific strategies.

For now, it remains unclear when the proposed multinational oversight committee will truly take power, and the similar is true for the appointed security force – or even the makeup of its members. On a recent day, a US official said the United States would not dictate the composition of the foreign contingent on Israel. But if the prime minister's administration continues to dismiss one alternative after another – as it did with the Ankara's proposal recently – what follows? There is also the reverse issue: who will determine whether the troops preferred by Israel are even willing in the task?

The question of the timeframe it will take to disarm the militant group is similarly unclear. “Our hope in the government is that the global peacekeeping unit is intends to now take charge in neutralizing the organization,” stated Vance this week. “It’s will require a period.” Trump further highlighted the lack of clarity, stating in an conversation recently that there is no “rigid” timeline for the group to lay down arms. So, in theory, the unnamed members of this not yet established international contingent could arrive in the territory while the organization's members still remain in control. Would they be dealing with a governing body or a militant faction? These are just a few of the concerns arising. Some might wonder what the outcome will be for ordinary Palestinians in the present situation, with the group carrying on to attack its own political rivals and dissidents.

Recent developments have yet again emphasized the blind spots of Israeli reporting on both sides of the Gaza boundary. Every publication attempts to scrutinize every possible angle of Hamas’s breaches of the truce. And, usually, the situation that the organization has been stalling the repatriation of the remains of killed Israeli captives has taken over the news.

On the other hand, coverage of non-combatant fatalities in Gaza caused by Israeli operations has received scant focus – or none. Consider the Israeli retaliatory actions following a recent Rafah occurrence, in which a pair of troops were killed. While local officials claimed 44 casualties, Israeli television analysts questioned the “limited answer,” which targeted just installations.

This is not new. During the past few days, Gaza’s media office alleged Israel of violating the peace with Hamas 47 times since the agreement began, killing 38 individuals and wounding an additional 143. The allegation appeared unimportant to the majority of Israeli reporting – it was just absent. That included information that eleven individuals of a Palestinian family were fatally shot by Israeli soldiers last Friday.

The rescue organization said the individuals had been trying to return to their home in the Zeitoun district of Gaza City when the transport they were in was fired upon for allegedly going over the “yellow line” that demarcates zones under Israeli military control. This yellow line is not visible to the human eye and shows up only on plans and in government papers – sometimes not available to everyday individuals in the area.

Even this event hardly received a note in Israeli journalism. A major outlet mentioned it briefly on its digital site, citing an Israeli military representative who stated that after a questionable transport was identified, troops fired cautionary rounds towards it, “but the transport continued to advance on the troops in a manner that posed an direct risk to them. The soldiers shot to eliminate the danger, in line with the agreement.” Zero casualties were claimed.

Given this perspective, it is little wonder many Israeli citizens think Hamas exclusively is to responsible for infringing the ceasefire. This belief risks encouraging calls for a stronger strategy in Gaza.

Eventually – maybe sooner rather than later – it will not be sufficient for American representatives to act as caretakers, advising Israel what not to do. They will {have to|need