🔗 Share this article

These days present a quite distinctive occurrence: the first-ever US procession of the babysitters. They vary in their expertise and traits, but they all have the common objective – to prevent an Israeli infringement, or even demolition, of the unstable ceasefire. After the war finished, there have been scant days without at least one of Donald Trump’s delegates on the scene. Just recently featured the likes of a senior advisor, a businessman, a senator and a political figure – all arriving to execute their assignments.

The Israeli government occupies their time. In only a few days it executed a series of strikes in Gaza after the deaths of a pair of Israeli military troops – leading, based on accounts, in dozens of local casualties. Several ministers demanded a renewal of the conflict, and the Knesset enacted a initial resolution to incorporate the occupied territories. The American reaction was somewhere between “no” and “hell no.”

Yet in various respects, the American government appears more focused on preserving the current, uneasy period of the peace than on progressing to the next: the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. Concerning this, it seems the United States may have goals but no concrete strategies.

For now, it is unclear at what point the planned multinational administrative entity will effectively take power, and the same applies to the proposed security force – or even the identity of its soldiers. On Tuesday, a US official said the US would not dictate the composition of the international unit on Israel. But if the prime minister's government keeps to dismiss multiple options – as it did with the Ankara's offer this week – what follows? There is also the reverse question: who will establish whether the troops supported by Israel are even prepared in the mission?

The issue of how long it will take to neutralize Hamas is just as unclear. “The expectation in the government is that the global peacekeeping unit is will at this point take the lead in demilitarizing the organization,” stated Vance recently. “It’s going to take a period.” Trump further highlighted the lack of clarity, declaring in an discussion a few days ago that there is no “rigid” deadline for the group to lay down arms. So, in theory, the unnamed participants of this yet-to-be-formed global contingent could arrive in the territory while Hamas members still remain in control. Would they be facing a administration or a militant faction? These represent only some of the issues arising. Some might question what the verdict will be for average Palestinians in the present situation, with Hamas continuing to focus on its own adversaries and opposition.

Current incidents have afresh emphasized the blind spots of Israeli reporting on the two sides of the Gazan border. Each outlet strives to scrutinize every possible angle of the group's breaches of the ceasefire. And, usually, the situation that Hamas has been hindering the repatriation of the bodies of slain Israeli captives has monopolized the news.

On the other hand, reporting of civilian fatalities in Gaza caused by Israeli attacks has obtained minimal focus – if at all. Take the Israeli response actions following Sunday’s Rafah event, in which two military personnel were killed. While local officials stated dozens of deaths, Israeli media pundits complained about the “moderate reaction,” which focused on solely infrastructure.

This is nothing new. Over the recent weekend, the press agency alleged Israeli forces of violating the ceasefire with Hamas 47 occasions after the ceasefire came into effect, causing the death of dozens of individuals and wounding another 143. The claim appeared insignificant to the majority of Israeli media outlets – it was simply missing. That included information that 11 members of a local family were fatally shot by Israeli forces last Friday.

Gaza’s rescue organization stated the individuals had been trying to return to their home in the Zeitoun neighbourhood of Gaza City when the vehicle they were in was fired upon for allegedly going over the “boundary” that marks zones under Israeli army control. This boundary is not visible to the naked eye and is visible only on plans and in official papers – sometimes not accessible to ordinary people in the region.

Yet this incident hardly got a mention in Israeli journalism. Channel 13 News mentioned it shortly on its online platform, referencing an IDF spokesperson who explained that after a suspicious vehicle was spotted, troops fired alerting fire towards it, “but the car continued to move toward the forces in a way that posed an imminent threat to them. The forces engaged to remove the danger, in accordance with the ceasefire.” No fatalities were stated.

Given such framing, it is understandable numerous Israelis feel the group solely is to responsible for breaking the ceasefire. This belief risks encouraging calls for a stronger stance in the region.

Eventually – possibly sooner than expected – it will no longer be enough for all the president’s men to act as supervisors, instructing the Israeli government what not to do. They will {have to|need