🔗 Share this article

These days showcase a quite unusual situation: the first-ever US march of the babysitters. They vary in their skills and attributes, but they all share the identical objective – to stop an Israeli infringement, or even destruction, of the delicate ceasefire. After the conflict ended, there have been scant days without at least one of the former president's delegates on the territory. Just this past week featured the likes of a senior advisor, Steve Witkoff, JD Vance and Marco Rubio – all coming to perform their duties.

Israel keeps them busy. In only a few days it initiated a series of attacks in the region after the loss of a pair of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops – leading, as reported, in many of local casualties. A number of leaders called for a restart of the fighting, and the Knesset passed a preliminary resolution to incorporate the occupied territories. The American reaction was somewhere ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

Yet in various respects, the US leadership appears more focused on preserving the existing, unstable period of the ceasefire than on moving to the following: the rehabilitation of the Gaza Strip. Concerning this, it seems the US may have ambitions but little concrete plans.

At present, it is unknown when the planned multinational oversight committee will truly take power, and the same applies to the appointed security force – or even the identity of its members. On Tuesday, Vance declared the US would not impose the membership of the foreign contingent on the Israeli government. But if the prime minister's cabinet keeps to refuse one alternative after another – as it did with the Ankara's proposal recently – what happens then? There is also the contrary question: which party will decide whether the forces supported by the Israelis are even interested in the assignment?

The issue of the duration it will need to disarm the militant group is just as ambiguous. “The expectation in the government is that the global peacekeeping unit is going to now take charge in neutralizing the organization,” stated the official recently. “That’s will require a while.” The former president only highlighted the lack of clarity, declaring in an interview a few days ago that there is no “hard” deadline for the group to demilitarize. So, hypothetically, the unnamed participants of this not yet established international contingent could enter the territory while Hamas members continue to wield influence. Are they confronting a governing body or a militant faction? These represent only some of the questions emerging. Some might question what the outcome will be for average civilians as things stand, with the group carrying on to attack its own adversaries and opposition.

Current developments have once again emphasized the gaps of local media coverage on each side of the Gazan boundary. Every publication attempts to examine every possible perspective of Hamas’s violations of the peace. And, in general, the reality that Hamas has been stalling the repatriation of the remains of killed Israeli captives has dominated the news.

By contrast, attention of non-combatant fatalities in Gaza resulting from Israeli attacks has garnered scant focus – if any. Consider the Israeli counter attacks after Sunday’s southern Gaza incident, in which two troops were lost. While Gaza’s officials reported 44 deaths, Israeli media commentators complained about the “moderate reaction,” which focused on only infrastructure.

That is not new. Over the past weekend, the press agency alleged Israeli forces of violating the truce with the group 47 times after the truce came into effect, killing dozens of Palestinians and injuring another 143. The assertion seemed insignificant to most Israeli news programmes – it was merely absent. That included reports that 11 members of a Palestinian household were killed by Israeli soldiers last Friday.

The emergency services said the family had been trying to go back to their home in the a Gaza City neighbourhood of the city when the bus they were in was attacked for supposedly going over the “boundary” that marks areas under Israeli army control. This yellow line is invisible to the naked eye and appears only on plans and in authoritative records – sometimes not available to ordinary people in the region.

Even that event scarcely received a mention in Israeli journalism. One source referred to it in passing on its digital site, quoting an Israeli military official who said that after a suspicious car was spotted, forces discharged cautionary rounds towards it, “but the transport kept to advance on the troops in a manner that caused an immediate danger to them. The soldiers shot to neutralize the risk, in compliance with the agreement.” No casualties were stated.

Amid such narrative, it is no surprise numerous Israeli citizens feel the group solely is to responsible for breaking the truce. That perception threatens encouraging calls for a more aggressive approach in Gaza.

At some point – perhaps sooner than expected – it will no longer be adequate for US envoys to take on the role of caretakers, telling the Israeli government what to refrain from. They will {have to|need