🔗 Share this article

These times showcase a quite unusual situation: the first-ever US march of the caretakers. Their qualifications differ in their qualifications and attributes, but they all possess the same objective – to stop an Israeli infringement, or even devastation, of the unstable peace agreement. After the hostilities concluded, there have been scant days without at least one of the former president's representatives on the territory. Just in the last few days included the arrival of a senior advisor, a businessman, a senator and a political figure – all arriving to carry out their assignments.

Israel engages them fully. In just a few short period it initiated a series of attacks in Gaza after the loss of a pair of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) personnel – leading, according to reports, in many of Palestinian fatalities. A number of officials urged a renewal of the fighting, and the Knesset approved a initial measure to incorporate the occupied territories. The US stance was somewhere between “no” and “hell no.”

Yet in more than one sense, the US leadership seems more concentrated on maintaining the current, tense phase of the peace than on moving to the next: the reconstruction of Gaza. Regarding that, it seems the US may have goals but few tangible plans.

Currently, it is uncertain at what point the suggested multinational oversight committee will truly assume control, and the same applies to the appointed peacekeeping troops – or even the composition of its members. On Tuesday, Vance stated the United States would not force the membership of the foreign contingent on Israel. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s government continues to dismiss various proposals – as it did with the Ankara's offer this week – what occurs next? There is also the opposite point: who will establish whether the forces favoured by the Israelis are even willing in the task?

The issue of the timeframe it will need to demilitarize the militant group is similarly vague. “The expectation in the leadership is that the multinational troops is going to now assume responsibility in demilitarizing Hamas,” stated the official this week. “That’s may need a period.” Trump further highlighted the ambiguity, stating in an conversation on Sunday that there is no “hard” schedule for the group to disarm. So, theoretically, the unknown participants of this not yet established international contingent could arrive in the territory while Hamas members continue to wield influence. Are they facing a governing body or a guerrilla movement? These are just a few of the concerns arising. Some might question what the result will be for ordinary Palestinians as things stand, with Hamas continuing to focus on its own political rivals and critics.

Recent developments have afresh underscored the gaps of Israeli media coverage on both sides of the Gazan boundary. Each publication strives to scrutinize every possible aspect of the group's violations of the ceasefire. And, usually, the fact that Hamas has been delaying the return of the remains of slain Israeli hostages has taken over the coverage.

On the other hand, reporting of civilian deaths in Gaza stemming from Israeli strikes has received scant notice – or none. Consider the Israeli retaliatory strikes following Sunday’s Rafah event, in which a pair of troops were lost. While local officials claimed 44 deaths, Israeli media commentators questioned the “moderate reaction,” which targeted solely infrastructure.

This is not new. Over the previous weekend, Gaza’s information bureau accused Israel of infringing the truce with the group multiple times after the truce began, causing the death of dozens of Palestinians and harming an additional many more. The allegation seemed insignificant to most Israeli reporting – it was simply missing. Even information that eleven members of a local household were lost their lives by Israeli soldiers last Friday.

The rescue organization stated the group had been attempting to return to their residence in the Zeitoun area of Gaza City when the vehicle they were in was attacked for reportedly crossing the “boundary” that defines areas under Israeli army command. That limit is unseen to the human eye and appears only on plans and in authoritative papers – not always available to average individuals in the territory.

Yet that occurrence hardly received a mention in Israeli media. One source covered it in passing on its digital site, citing an IDF spokesperson who explained that after a suspicious vehicle was identified, soldiers fired alerting fire towards it, “but the vehicle continued to advance on the forces in a manner that created an immediate danger to them. The soldiers shot to neutralize the danger, in compliance with the agreement.” Zero fatalities were claimed.

Given this perspective, it is little wonder numerous Israeli citizens feel the group alone is to responsible for infringing the ceasefire. This view risks encouraging demands for a stronger strategy in the region.

Sooner or later – maybe sooner than expected – it will not be sufficient for all the president’s men to act as caretakers, advising Israel what to refrain from. They will {have to|need