🔗 Share this article

Thhese days showcase a very unique phenomenon: the first-ever US march of the overseers. Their attributes range in their expertise and characteristics, but they all share the identical objective – to prevent an Israeli breach, or even devastation, of the unstable ceasefire. After the hostilities concluded, there have been scant occasions without at least one of the former president's envoys on the territory. Only this past week included the likes of Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, JD Vance and a political figure – all coming to perform their duties.

Israel occupies their time. In only a few short period it initiated a series of attacks in the region after the killings of two Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops – resulting, as reported, in dozens of local fatalities. A number of leaders demanded a restart of the fighting, and the Knesset approved a early decision to incorporate the West Bank. The US stance was somehow between “no” and “hell no.”

However in various respects, the US leadership seems more concentrated on maintaining the existing, tense phase of the truce than on advancing to the next: the rehabilitation of Gaza. Concerning that, it appears the United States may have aspirations but no concrete strategies.

At present, it remains uncertain at what point the planned international oversight committee will effectively begin operating, and the similar is true for the designated military contingent – or even the composition of its members. On Tuesday, a US official said the United States would not dictate the composition of the foreign unit on Israel. But if the prime minister's cabinet continues to refuse one alternative after another – as it acted with the Ankara's suggestion recently – what happens then? There is also the opposite issue: who will determine whether the units supported by Israel are even willing in the mission?

The question of the duration it will take to neutralize the militant group is similarly vague. “The aim in the administration is that the international security force is will at this point assume responsibility in disarming Hamas,” stated the official lately. “It’s going to take a while.” Trump further emphasized the ambiguity, stating in an interview on Sunday that there is no “hard” timeline for the group to disarm. So, in theory, the unknown participants of this not yet established global force could arrive in Gaza while Hamas members continue to wield influence. Are they facing a leadership or a guerrilla movement? These represent only some of the questions arising. Some might question what the outcome will be for ordinary Palestinians in the present situation, with Hamas persisting to attack its own adversaries and opposition.

Current incidents have once again emphasized the gaps of Israeli reporting on the two sides of the Gaza frontier. Every publication seeks to examine all conceivable aspect of the group's breaches of the ceasefire. And, usually, the fact that Hamas has been hindering the return of the remains of slain Israeli captives has monopolized the news.

On the other hand, reporting of non-combatant fatalities in the region stemming from Israeli attacks has received scant notice – if any. Consider the Israeli response attacks following Sunday’s southern Gaza event, in which two soldiers were lost. While Gaza’s officials stated dozens of fatalities, Israeli media analysts questioned the “light answer,” which hit only infrastructure.

That is not new. Over the past weekend, Gaza’s information bureau charged Israel of violating the ceasefire with Hamas multiple occasions after the agreement came into effect, killing 38 individuals and wounding another many more. The allegation was irrelevant to most Israeli news programmes – it was merely absent. This applied to reports that 11 members of a Palestinian household were lost their lives by Israeli soldiers a few days ago.

Gaza’s emergency services said the group had been attempting to go back to their residence in the a Gaza City district of the city when the bus they were in was targeted for allegedly crossing the “boundary” that demarcates areas under Israeli military authority. That boundary is invisible to the human eye and appears only on charts and in government records – often not obtainable to average people in the region.

Yet that occurrence scarcely rated a reference in Israeli journalism. Channel 13 News referred to it briefly on its digital site, quoting an IDF official who explained that after a suspicious car was identified, forces shot warning shots towards it, “but the vehicle kept to move toward the forces in a way that posed an imminent risk to them. The troops shot to eliminate the danger, in line with the truce.” Zero casualties were claimed.

Amid this narrative, it is understandable many Israelis think the group solely is to responsible for violating the peace. This perception risks fuelling calls for a stronger approach in Gaza.

At some point – maybe sooner rather than later – it will no longer be enough for all the president’s men to take on the role of caretakers, telling the Israeli government what to refrain from. They will {have to|need