🔗 Share this article

These days present a very distinctive phenomenon: the pioneering US parade of the caretakers. They vary in their qualifications and attributes, but they all possess the same objective – to prevent an Israeli breach, or even destruction, of the fragile ceasefire. After the hostilities concluded, there have been rare occasions without at least one of Donald Trump’s delegates on the scene. Only recently included the arrival of Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, JD Vance and Marco Rubio – all coming to perform their assignments.

The Israeli government occupies their time. In only a few days it launched a set of strikes in Gaza after the loss of two Israel Defense Forces (IDF) personnel – leading, based on accounts, in many of Palestinian casualties. A number of leaders called for a resumption of the fighting, and the Israeli parliament approved a preliminary decision to take over the West Bank. The American reaction was somewhere ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

But in several ways, the American government appears more intent on upholding the existing, uneasy phase of the truce than on progressing to the next: the reconstruction of Gaza. When it comes to that, it seems the US may have aspirations but no specific plans.

For now, it remains unclear when the planned international governing body will truly begin operating, and the same is true for the designated security force – or even the makeup of its personnel. On a recent day, a US official stated the United States would not dictate the structure of the international contingent on Israel. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet continues to reject one alternative after another – as it acted with the Turkish proposal lately – what occurs next? There is also the opposite issue: who will establish whether the troops supported by Israel are even interested in the task?

The matter of how long it will take to disarm Hamas is just as vague. “The expectation in the government is that the multinational troops is will at this point assume responsibility in neutralizing Hamas,” stated the official this week. “It’s will require a period.” Trump further reinforced the lack of clarity, declaring in an interview recently that there is no “rigid” timeline for the group to disarm. So, in theory, the unnamed members of this not yet established global contingent could arrive in the territory while Hamas militants continue to wield influence. Would they be dealing with a administration or a insurgent group? These are just a few of the issues surfacing. Some might wonder what the result will be for ordinary civilians under current conditions, with the group persisting to focus on its own political rivals and dissidents.

Current developments have once again emphasized the omissions of local journalism on each side of the Gaza boundary. Every source seeks to scrutinize all conceivable aspect of Hamas’s breaches of the peace. And, usually, the situation that Hamas has been hindering the repatriation of the remains of deceased Israeli hostages has monopolized the news.

By contrast, reporting of civilian casualties in the region stemming from Israeli attacks has obtained scant attention – or none. Take the Israeli retaliatory attacks after a recent southern Gaza incident, in which two soldiers were killed. While local officials stated 44 fatalities, Israeli media commentators questioned the “moderate reaction,” which targeted just facilities.

That is nothing new. During the previous few days, Gaza’s information bureau accused Israeli forces of breaking the peace with the group 47 times since the agreement was implemented, resulting in the loss of dozens of individuals and harming another 143. The allegation seemed irrelevant to the majority of Israeli reporting – it was merely absent. Even information that 11 individuals of a local family were fatally shot by Israeli forces a few days ago.

The civil defence agency said the family had been trying to return to their residence in the a Gaza City neighbourhood of the city when the vehicle they were in was attacked for reportedly passing the “boundary” that demarcates zones under Israeli military control. This boundary is unseen to the naked eye and appears only on charts and in government papers – often not accessible to average residents in the region.

Even that event scarcely received a note in Israeli media. A major outlet covered it briefly on its website, quoting an Israeli military spokesperson who explained that after a suspicious car was identified, troops shot cautionary rounds towards it, “but the transport kept to move toward the forces in a manner that created an direct danger to them. The soldiers opened fire to remove the danger, in accordance with the ceasefire.” No casualties were claimed.

Amid this perspective, it is little wonder many Israelis think Hamas exclusively is to blame for violating the ceasefire. This view could lead to fuelling appeals for a more aggressive approach in the region.

Sooner or later – possibly sooner than expected – it will no longer be sufficient for American representatives to take on the role of supervisors, advising Israel what not to do. They will {have to|need