🔗 Share this article

These days present a quite unique occurrence: the inaugural US march of the babysitters. Their attributes range in their skills and traits, but they all possess the common mission – to prevent an Israeli breach, or even demolition, of the unstable peace agreement. Since the war finished, there have been few days without at least one of Donald Trump’s representatives on the ground. Only recently included the presence of a senior advisor, Steve Witkoff, a senator and Marco Rubio – all appearing to carry out their duties.

The Israeli government engages them fully. In only a few short period it executed a set of operations in the region after the loss of a pair of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers – resulting, based on accounts, in dozens of local injuries. Several officials urged a renewal of the fighting, and the Knesset enacted a initial measure to incorporate the occupied territories. The American response was somehow between “no” and “hell no.”

However in several ways, the Trump administration appears more focused on maintaining the present, unstable stage of the peace than on moving to the following: the rebuilding of the Gaza Strip. Regarding this, it looks the US may have ambitions but no concrete plans.

For now, it remains unclear at what point the proposed multinational administrative entity will truly begin operating, and the similar goes for the designated security force – or even the identity of its members. On Tuesday, Vance stated the United States would not impose the structure of the international force on the Israeli government. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration continues to dismiss multiple options – as it acted with the Ankara's suggestion this week – what occurs next? There is also the opposite point: which party will establish whether the forces supported by Israel are even prepared in the assignment?

The issue of how long it will require to disarm Hamas is similarly ambiguous. “The expectation in the leadership is that the multinational troops is will now take the lead in neutralizing Hamas,” remarked Vance this week. “It’s will require some time.” The former president further emphasized the lack of clarity, declaring in an discussion on Sunday that there is no “hard” deadline for Hamas to disarm. So, hypothetically, the unidentified participants of this still unformed global contingent could enter Gaza while Hamas fighters still remain in control. Would they be facing a governing body or a militant faction? These represent only some of the issues surfacing. Others might wonder what the result will be for ordinary civilians under current conditions, with the group persisting to target its own opponents and opposition.

Latest incidents have afresh highlighted the gaps of local media coverage on the two sides of the Gazan border. Every source attempts to analyze every possible angle of Hamas’s infractions of the truce. And, usually, the reality that the organization has been hindering the repatriation of the bodies of slain Israeli captives has taken over the coverage.

On the other hand, reporting of non-combatant fatalities in Gaza resulting from Israeli operations has obtained minimal notice – or none. Take the Israeli response actions after Sunday’s southern Gaza occurrence, in which a pair of troops were lost. While local authorities reported 44 casualties, Israeli news commentators questioned the “limited reaction,” which focused on only infrastructure.

That is typical. Over the previous few days, Gaza’s information bureau accused Israel of violating the ceasefire with the group 47 occasions since the ceasefire began, causing the death of dozens of individuals and wounding another many more. The assertion was unimportant to most Israeli reporting – it was simply ignored. That included accounts that 11 members of a Palestinian family were fatally shot by Israeli forces a few days ago.

The rescue organization stated the individuals had been attempting to go back to their dwelling in the Zeitoun area of Gaza City when the bus they were in was attacked for reportedly passing the “demarcation line” that defines territories under Israeli military command. This boundary is not visible to the naked eye and appears only on charts and in authoritative documents – sometimes not available to average people in the territory.

Yet that incident scarcely rated a reference in Israeli journalism. One source referred to it shortly on its website, referencing an Israeli military spokesperson who stated that after a questionable vehicle was identified, forces shot cautionary rounds towards it, “but the car persisted to move toward the forces in a way that created an immediate risk to them. The soldiers engaged to eliminate the threat, in accordance with the ceasefire.” No casualties were claimed.

Amid this narrative, it is understandable many Israelis feel Hamas exclusively is to blame for infringing the ceasefire. This belief risks prompting demands for a more aggressive approach in Gaza.

Sooner or later – maybe in the near future – it will no longer be enough for US envoys to play caretakers, instructing Israel what to avoid. They will {have to|need