🔗 Share this article

These days exhibit a quite unique phenomenon: the pioneering US procession of the caretakers. Their attributes range in their skills and attributes, but they all have the identical mission – to stop an Israeli infringement, or even devastation, of Gaza’s fragile truce. Since the hostilities ended, there have been rare days without at least one of Donald Trump’s envoys on the scene. Just this past week saw the likes of a senior advisor, a businessman, a senator and a political figure – all appearing to execute their duties.

Israel keeps them busy. In just a few short period it executed a set of attacks in Gaza after the loss of a pair of Israeli military troops – leading, according to reports, in scores of local fatalities. A number of officials demanded a resumption of the war, and the Israeli parliament passed a preliminary resolution to take over the occupied territories. The US response was somewhere between “no” and “hell no.”

But in more than one sense, the US leadership appears more focused on preserving the current, unstable period of the ceasefire than on moving to the following: the reconstruction of Gaza. Regarding that, it appears the US may have goals but little tangible proposals.

At present, it remains unclear at what point the planned multinational oversight committee will effectively take power, and the identical is true for the designated military contingent – or even the composition of its personnel. On Tuesday, a US official said the United States would not dictate the membership of the foreign unit on Israel. But if the prime minister's administration keeps to reject one alternative after another – as it did with the Ankara's suggestion lately – what occurs next? There is also the contrary point: which party will decide whether the troops preferred by the Israelis are even willing in the task?

The issue of how long it will take to neutralize Hamas is equally vague. “The aim in the administration is that the multinational troops is intends to at this point take the lead in disarming the organization,” stated the official recently. “That’s going to take a period.” Trump only reinforced the ambiguity, saying in an interview recently that there is no “rigid” schedule for Hamas to disarm. So, hypothetically, the unnamed participants of this yet-to-be-formed global force could enter Gaza while the organization's fighters continue to wield influence. Would they be facing a leadership or a militant faction? These represent only some of the questions surfacing. Some might ask what the result will be for everyday civilians under current conditions, with Hamas persisting to focus on its own opponents and dissidents.

Current developments have yet again highlighted the gaps of Israeli media coverage on each side of the Gaza boundary. Each outlet strives to scrutinize every possible aspect of the group's infractions of the truce. And, in general, the reality that Hamas has been delaying the return of the remains of slain Israeli captives has dominated the coverage.

Conversely, reporting of civilian deaths in the region resulting from Israeli attacks has received scant attention – or none. Consider the Israeli response actions after a recent Rafah incident, in which two soldiers were killed. While local officials stated dozens of casualties, Israeli media commentators complained about the “light reaction,” which focused on only infrastructure.

That is nothing new. Over the previous few days, Gaza’s media office alleged Israel of violating the truce with Hamas multiple times since the ceasefire came into effect, resulting in the loss of 38 individuals and harming an additional many more. The claim appeared irrelevant to the majority of Israeli media outlets – it was simply missing. This applied to accounts that 11 members of a local family were lost their lives by Israeli soldiers a few days ago.

The emergency services reported the individuals had been trying to go back to their residence in the a Gaza City neighbourhood of the city when the vehicle they were in was attacked for supposedly crossing the “boundary” that defines zones under Israeli army authority. That yellow line is unseen to the ordinary view and shows up solely on charts and in authoritative papers – often not accessible to everyday individuals in the area.

Even that incident scarcely rated a reference in Israeli journalism. A major outlet mentioned it in passing on its website, quoting an Israeli military spokesperson who said that after a suspicious car was spotted, troops shot warning shots towards it, “but the vehicle persisted to approach the soldiers in a manner that created an direct threat to them. The troops shot to eliminate the threat, in line with the agreement.” Zero casualties were stated.

Amid such framing, it is little wonder many Israelis feel Hamas solely is to responsible for violating the truce. That view threatens encouraging demands for a stronger approach in the region.

At some point – perhaps sooner than expected – it will no longer be sufficient for American representatives to act as caretakers, telling the Israeli government what not to do. They will {have to|need