🔗 Share this article

These days showcase a quite unique occurrence: the first-ever US march of the caretakers. They vary in their expertise and characteristics, but they all possess the common objective – to stop an Israeli breach, or even devastation, of the delicate peace agreement. Since the war ended, there have been rare days without at least one of the former president's envoys on the scene. Just this past week featured the presence of a senior advisor, Steve Witkoff, a senator and a political figure – all coming to execute their duties.

Israel engages them fully. In just a few short period it initiated a wave of attacks in Gaza after the deaths of two Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops – resulting, based on accounts, in scores of Palestinian casualties. Several officials demanded a restart of the fighting, and the Knesset approved a early measure to annex the occupied territories. The American reaction was somewhere ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

But in several ways, the Trump administration seems more concentrated on maintaining the current, unstable period of the ceasefire than on moving to the next: the rebuilding of the Gaza Strip. Regarding this, it seems the United States may have aspirations but few specific plans.

At present, it remains unknown when the suggested multinational governing body will actually begin operating, and the identical applies to the appointed peacekeeping troops – or even the makeup of its members. On Tuesday, Vance declared the United States would not force the composition of the foreign contingent on Israel. But if the prime minister's government continues to dismiss multiple options – as it acted with the Ankara's offer this week – what occurs next? There is also the contrary point: which party will determine whether the forces supported by Israel are even interested in the mission?

The question of how long it will require to neutralize the militant group is similarly unclear. “The aim in the government is that the international security force is going to at this point assume responsibility in disarming the organization,” said Vance recently. “That’s going to take some time.” The former president only reinforced the ambiguity, stating in an interview a few days ago that there is no “fixed” timeline for Hamas to disarm. So, hypothetically, the unnamed elements of this still unformed international force could enter the territory while Hamas fighters still hold power. Would they be confronting a governing body or a militant faction? These represent only some of the questions arising. Some might question what the verdict will be for ordinary Palestinians in the present situation, with the group persisting to target its own political rivals and opposition.

Latest developments have yet again emphasized the omissions of Israeli journalism on both sides of the Gaza border. Every source attempts to scrutinize all conceivable perspective of Hamas’s violations of the ceasefire. And, usually, the situation that Hamas has been delaying the return of the bodies of deceased Israeli captives has monopolized the coverage.

By contrast, coverage of civilian fatalities in the region caused by Israeli operations has obtained little focus – if at all. Take the Israeli retaliatory strikes in the wake of Sunday’s Rafah event, in which a pair of military personnel were killed. While local sources claimed 44 casualties, Israeli television commentators criticised the “light reaction,” which hit only facilities.

This is nothing new. During the past few days, the media office accused Israel of breaking the truce with the group 47 times after the agreement was implemented, killing dozens of individuals and wounding another 143. The allegation was unimportant to most Israeli media outlets – it was simply ignored. This applied to accounts that eleven members of a Palestinian household were fatally shot by Israeli troops a few days ago.

The emergency services reported the individuals had been trying to return to their home in the a Gaza City neighbourhood of the city when the vehicle they were in was targeted for allegedly going over the “boundary” that marks areas under Israeli military command. That yellow line is not visible to the human eye and shows up solely on plans and in government records – sometimes not accessible to ordinary people in the region.

Yet that occurrence barely received a reference in Israeli media. One source covered it briefly on its online platform, quoting an IDF official who said that after a suspect transport was detected, soldiers shot warning shots towards it, “but the vehicle kept to move toward the forces in a fashion that caused an imminent danger to them. The troops shot to remove the risk, in line with the agreement.” No casualties were stated.

With this narrative, it is understandable many Israeli citizens believe Hamas alone is to blame for violating the truce. This view risks encouraging demands for a tougher approach in the region.

Eventually – maybe sooner rather than later – it will not be sufficient for all the president’s men to play kindergarten teachers, telling the Israeli government what to refrain from. They will {have to|need