🔗 Share this article

These days showcase a very distinctive situation: the first-ever US march of the overseers. Their attributes range in their qualifications and characteristics, but they all possess the same mission – to prevent an Israeli violation, or even devastation, of the fragile peace agreement. Since the conflict concluded, there have been few days without at least one of Donald Trump’s delegates on the territory. Just this past week saw the likes of Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, a senator and a political figure – all appearing to execute their duties.

The Israeli government occupies their time. In only a few short period it initiated a wave of attacks in Gaza after the killings of a pair of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers – resulting, as reported, in scores of local fatalities. Several ministers called for a resumption of the conflict, and the Knesset enacted a early measure to take over the occupied territories. The American response was somehow ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

But in several ways, the Trump administration appears more concentrated on maintaining the existing, tense period of the truce than on moving to the next: the reconstruction of Gaza. When it comes to this, it appears the US may have ambitions but few concrete plans.

For now, it is unclear at what point the proposed global administrative entity will actually take power, and the identical applies to the appointed military contingent – or even the composition of its personnel. On a recent day, Vance declared the United States would not impose the membership of the foreign force on the Israeli government. But if the prime minister's government continues to reject various proposals – as it acted with the Turkish offer lately – what follows? There is also the contrary issue: who will determine whether the forces supported by Israel are even prepared in the task?

The matter of how long it will need to neutralize the militant group is equally unclear. “The expectation in the leadership is that the global peacekeeping unit is going to now assume responsibility in neutralizing the organization,” said the official recently. “That’s going to take a while.” Trump only reinforced the uncertainty, declaring in an conversation recently that there is no “hard” schedule for Hamas to disarm. So, hypothetically, the unknown elements of this not yet established international force could deploy to the territory while Hamas fighters still wield influence. Would they be facing a administration or a militant faction? These represent only some of the concerns surfacing. Some might question what the verdict will be for everyday Palestinians under current conditions, with Hamas persisting to attack its own political rivals and opposition.

Current incidents have afresh emphasized the gaps of Israeli media coverage on the two sides of the Gazan frontier. Each outlet attempts to scrutinize every possible aspect of the group's infractions of the ceasefire. And, usually, the situation that Hamas has been hindering the return of the bodies of deceased Israeli captives has monopolized the news.

Conversely, attention of non-combatant casualties in the region caused by Israeli operations has obtained little focus – if any. Consider the Israeli retaliatory actions following Sunday’s southern Gaza event, in which a pair of soldiers were killed. While local sources stated 44 casualties, Israeli news commentators questioned the “light reaction,” which hit solely facilities.

That is not new. During the recent weekend, Gaza’s information bureau accused Israeli forces of infringing the peace with Hamas 47 times after the ceasefire was implemented, resulting in the loss of 38 Palestinians and injuring another 143. The assertion seemed unimportant to most Israeli media outlets – it was merely absent. That included reports that eleven members of a local household were fatally shot by Israeli troops last Friday.

The civil defence agency reported the group had been trying to go back to their dwelling in the Zeitoun district of Gaza City when the transport they were in was fired upon for allegedly crossing the “boundary” that defines zones under Israeli army authority. That yellow line is unseen to the human eye and shows up just on maps and in government records – often not accessible to everyday residents in the region.

Yet this incident scarcely received a reference in Israeli journalism. A major outlet mentioned it in passing on its online platform, quoting an IDF spokesperson who said that after a suspicious vehicle was detected, soldiers discharged warning shots towards it, “but the transport persisted to approach the troops in a fashion that created an direct danger to them. The forces shot to remove the threat, in compliance with the truce.” Zero fatalities were reported.

Given such framing, it is little wonder numerous Israelis feel the group solely is to responsible for violating the peace. This belief threatens encouraging calls for a stronger approach in Gaza.

Eventually – possibly in the near future – it will not be enough for all the president’s men to act as caretakers, instructing the Israeli government what to avoid. They will {have to|need