🔗 Share this article

Thhese times showcase a quite unusual situation: the pioneering US march of the overseers. They vary in their skills and traits, but they all have the common objective – to avert an Israeli violation, or even demolition, of the delicate peace agreement. Since the conflict concluded, there have been rare days without at least one of Donald Trump’s envoys on the territory. Only this past week featured the likes of a senior advisor, a businessman, a senator and Marco Rubio – all arriving to carry out their assignments.

The Israeli government keeps them busy. In just a few days it initiated a set of strikes in the region after the loss of a pair of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers – leading, based on accounts, in dozens of Palestinian injuries. A number of ministers demanded a restart of the war, and the Knesset enacted a initial resolution to annex the West Bank. The US response was somewhere between “no” and “hell no.”

But in various respects, the Trump administration seems more focused on maintaining the existing, unstable period of the ceasefire than on advancing to the next: the rebuilding of Gaza. Concerning that, it seems the United States may have aspirations but no specific proposals.

For now, it remains unclear when the planned international oversight committee will effectively begin operating, and the same goes for the proposed security force – or even the makeup of its personnel. On a recent day, Vance declared the US would not dictate the composition of the international unit on the Israeli government. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s government continues to reject multiple options – as it did with the Turkish suggestion recently – what happens then? There is also the contrary point: who will establish whether the units preferred by the Israelis are even prepared in the mission?

The question of how long it will need to neutralize Hamas is equally unclear. “Our hope in the government is that the international security force is intends to now assume responsibility in disarming Hamas,” remarked the official this week. “It’s going to take a while.” The former president further highlighted the uncertainty, stating in an discussion on Sunday that there is no “hard” timeline for Hamas to lay down arms. So, in theory, the unnamed members of this still unformed international contingent could enter the territory while Hamas militants continue to hold power. Would they be confronting a governing body or a guerrilla movement? These represent only some of the issues surfacing. Others might ask what the result will be for ordinary residents in the present situation, with Hamas carrying on to focus on its own opponents and dissidents.

Recent developments have yet again highlighted the blind spots of Israeli media coverage on the two sides of the Gazan boundary. Every outlet strives to examine all conceivable aspect of Hamas’s breaches of the ceasefire. And, typically, the reality that the organization has been hindering the repatriation of the bodies of slain Israeli captives has dominated the headlines.

Conversely, reporting of non-combatant deaths in Gaza resulting from Israeli attacks has obtained scant notice – if at all. Consider the Israeli counter attacks after a recent Rafah occurrence, in which a pair of military personnel were fatally wounded. While local sources stated 44 deaths, Israeli television analysts criticised the “moderate reaction,” which hit just facilities.

This is nothing new. Over the past weekend, the media office charged Israel of infringing the ceasefire with the group 47 times after the ceasefire was implemented, causing the death of 38 individuals and wounding another many more. The claim seemed unimportant to the majority of Israeli reporting – it was just missing. Even information that eleven members of a local household were fatally shot by Israeli forces recently.

The emergency services stated the group had been attempting to go back to their dwelling in the a Gaza City neighbourhood of Gaza City when the bus they were in was fired upon for allegedly crossing the “boundary” that defines zones under Israeli military command. That limit is not visible to the naked eye and shows up solely on charts and in official records – sometimes not available to average residents in the area.

Yet this event barely got a reference in Israeli journalism. One source mentioned it in passing on its website, quoting an Israeli military official who said that after a questionable vehicle was detected, forces shot cautionary rounds towards it, “but the vehicle continued to advance on the forces in a way that created an imminent danger to them. The soldiers opened fire to remove the danger, in line with the agreement.” No fatalities were claimed.

With such framing, it is understandable numerous Israelis believe Hamas solely is to blame for violating the peace. This view could lead to fuelling demands for a tougher approach in Gaza.

Eventually – perhaps sooner than expected – it will not be adequate for US envoys to play caretakers, advising the Israeli government what to avoid. They will {have to|need