🔗 Share this article

Thhese days exhibit a quite unusual situation: the first-ever US march of the overseers. Their qualifications differ in their expertise and traits, but they all share the identical objective – to avert an Israeli breach, or even destruction, of Gaza’s delicate peace agreement. After the war ended, there have been few days without at least one of Donald Trump’s delegates on the ground. Just this past week featured the arrival of Jared Kushner, a businessman, a senator and a political figure – all arriving to carry out their assignments.

The Israeli government engages them fully. In just a few days it initiated a wave of strikes in the region after the killings of a pair of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) personnel – resulting, according to reports, in dozens of Palestinian injuries. Several ministers called for a restart of the conflict, and the Knesset enacted a preliminary decision to take over the West Bank. The US response was somehow between “no” and “hell no.”

Yet in several ways, the American government seems more focused on upholding the current, tense period of the ceasefire than on moving to the subsequent: the rebuilding of Gaza. Regarding that, it looks the United States may have ambitions but few concrete proposals.

Currently, it remains uncertain at what point the planned multinational governing body will actually begin operating, and the same is true for the designated military contingent – or even the makeup of its personnel. On Tuesday, a US official declared the United States would not impose the structure of the international force on Israel. But if the prime minister's government keeps to refuse one alternative after another – as it acted with the Turkish proposal this week – what happens then? There is also the opposite question: who will establish whether the forces preferred by Israel are even prepared in the mission?

The question of how long it will need to demilitarize the militant group is just as ambiguous. “The aim in the leadership is that the multinational troops is intends to at this point assume responsibility in neutralizing the organization,” said the official this week. “That’s will require a period.” The former president further reinforced the lack of clarity, stating in an discussion on Sunday that there is no “rigid” timeline for Hamas to lay down arms. So, in theory, the unknown elements of this yet-to-be-formed global force could deploy to the territory while Hamas militants continue to hold power. Would they be facing a administration or a guerrilla movement? These represent only some of the concerns emerging. Some might question what the outcome will be for everyday residents in the present situation, with Hamas persisting to target its own adversaries and dissidents.

Latest incidents have yet again underscored the blind spots of local reporting on both sides of the Gaza border. Every publication attempts to analyze each potential angle of the group's infractions of the peace. And, usually, the reality that Hamas has been delaying the repatriation of the remains of killed Israeli hostages has monopolized the coverage.

By contrast, attention of civilian fatalities in Gaza stemming from Israeli strikes has garnered little notice – if any. Take the Israeli retaliatory actions following a recent Rafah event, in which a pair of military personnel were lost. While local authorities stated 44 deaths, Israeli media analysts questioned the “moderate reaction,” which targeted only facilities.

This is nothing new. Over the recent few days, the media office accused Israeli forces of violating the peace with Hamas 47 occasions since the truce came into effect, killing 38 Palestinians and wounding an additional 143. The claim appeared irrelevant to the majority of Israeli news programmes – it was merely absent. Even information that 11 individuals of a Palestinian family were killed by Israeli troops recently.

The emergency services said the individuals had been seeking to return to their home in the Zeitoun district of the city when the vehicle they were in was fired upon for supposedly crossing the “demarcation line” that defines territories under Israeli army command. That limit is not visible to the human eye and shows up just on charts and in authoritative papers – sometimes not obtainable to average people in the region.

Yet this occurrence barely rated a note in Israeli journalism. Channel 13 News covered it in passing on its online platform, citing an IDF spokesperson who said that after a questionable transport was spotted, soldiers discharged alerting fire towards it, “but the transport continued to move toward the forces in a fashion that posed an imminent risk to them. The soldiers engaged to neutralize the risk, in compliance with the truce.” Zero casualties were claimed.

With such framing, it is no surprise a lot of Israelis believe the group alone is to at fault for infringing the peace. This perception could lead to prompting calls for a stronger approach in the region.

Eventually – maybe in the near future – it will no longer be adequate for US envoys to play supervisors, instructing the Israeli government what to avoid. They will {have to|need