🔗 Share this article

Thhese days exhibit a quite unique situation: the first-ever US procession of the overseers. Their qualifications differ in their expertise and attributes, but they all possess the common mission – to prevent an Israeli infringement, or even devastation, of the fragile truce. Since the war ended, there have been scant days without at least one of the former president's delegates on the territory. Only this past week saw the likes of a senior advisor, Steve Witkoff, a senator and Marco Rubio – all coming to execute their assignments.

The Israeli government engages them fully. In only a few short period it executed a series of operations in the region after the deaths of a pair of Israeli military troops – resulting, based on accounts, in dozens of local casualties. Several leaders urged a renewal of the conflict, and the Knesset approved a initial resolution to annex the occupied territories. The US stance was somehow ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

But in several ways, the Trump administration seems more focused on upholding the current, tense stage of the truce than on moving to the next: the rehabilitation of the Gaza Strip. Concerning this, it appears the United States may have goals but few concrete strategies.

At present, it is unknown at what point the suggested global administrative entity will actually begin operating, and the identical goes for the appointed peacekeeping troops – or even the composition of its members. On a recent day, a US official said the US would not force the composition of the international force on Israel. But if the prime minister's administration keeps to refuse one alternative after another – as it acted with the Turkish suggestion recently – what follows? There is also the contrary question: which party will decide whether the troops favoured by the Israelis are even prepared in the task?

The issue of the duration it will need to demilitarize the militant group is similarly unclear. “Our hope in the leadership is that the global peacekeeping unit is intends to now take charge in neutralizing the organization,” remarked the official lately. “It’s will require a period.” The former president further emphasized the uncertainty, saying in an discussion a few days ago that there is no “fixed” schedule for the group to disarm. So, hypothetically, the unnamed participants of this yet-to-be-formed global force could deploy to the territory while Hamas militants continue to hold power. Are they dealing with a governing body or a guerrilla movement? These are just a few of the concerns surfacing. Some might ask what the verdict will be for average civilians under current conditions, with Hamas continuing to target its own adversaries and critics.

Latest developments have yet again underscored the omissions of Israeli media coverage on the two sides of the Gazan boundary. Each outlet attempts to examine all conceivable perspective of Hamas’s breaches of the peace. And, usually, the situation that the organization has been delaying the return of the remains of deceased Israeli captives has monopolized the news.

Conversely, coverage of non-combatant casualties in Gaza stemming from Israeli strikes has obtained minimal notice – if any. Take the Israeli response attacks in the wake of a recent Rafah event, in which a pair of soldiers were killed. While local officials claimed 44 fatalities, Israeli media analysts complained about the “moderate answer,” which hit only infrastructure.

This is nothing new. Over the past weekend, Gaza’s press agency charged Israeli forces of infringing the ceasefire with the group 47 times since the ceasefire came into effect, killing dozens of individuals and wounding an additional 143. The allegation appeared irrelevant to the majority of Israeli media outlets – it was just missing. That included reports that 11 members of a local household were killed by Israeli forces recently.

Gaza’s rescue organization reported the individuals had been trying to go back to their dwelling in the a Gaza City neighbourhood of the city when the bus they were in was fired upon for allegedly crossing the “yellow line” that marks areas under Israeli military command. That yellow line is invisible to the human eye and appears only on charts and in authoritative documents – often not obtainable to average residents in the territory.

Yet this incident scarcely got a mention in Israeli journalism. One source covered it in passing on its digital site, referencing an Israeli military official who said that after a suspicious vehicle was detected, forces discharged warning shots towards it, “but the transport continued to approach the troops in a fashion that caused an imminent risk to them. The soldiers shot to eliminate the threat, in line with the ceasefire.” Zero fatalities were claimed.

With this perspective, it is no surprise a lot of Israeli citizens feel Hamas solely is to responsible for breaking the ceasefire. This perception risks prompting appeals for a stronger strategy in the region.

Eventually – maybe in the near future – it will not be sufficient for all the president’s men to play kindergarten teachers, instructing the Israeli government what to avoid. They will {have to|need