🔗 Share this article

These times present a very unusual situation: the inaugural US procession of the babysitters. They vary in their expertise and characteristics, but they all share the same objective – to avert an Israeli violation, or even devastation, of Gaza’s delicate truce. After the hostilities ended, there have been scant days without at least one of Donald Trump’s envoys on the territory. Only this past week included the presence of Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, a senator and Marco Rubio – all coming to carry out their duties.

Israel occupies their time. In only a few days it launched a series of attacks in the region after the loss of two Israeli military personnel – leading, as reported, in scores of local fatalities. Multiple officials urged a renewal of the fighting, and the Israeli parliament enacted a early measure to incorporate the occupied territories. The American response was somewhere between “no” and “hell no.”

But in more than one sense, the US leadership seems more concentrated on preserving the current, uneasy stage of the peace than on progressing to the following: the rebuilding of the Gaza Strip. Regarding this, it looks the United States may have goals but no concrete plans.

For now, it remains unclear when the suggested multinational administrative entity will effectively assume control, and the same goes for the proposed military contingent – or even the identity of its members. On Tuesday, a US official stated the US would not dictate the composition of the foreign force on Israel. But if the prime minister's government persists to dismiss various proposals – as it acted with the Ankara's offer this week – what happens then? There is also the reverse point: which party will determine whether the forces supported by the Israelis are even interested in the mission?

The question of the duration it will take to demilitarize the militant group is just as vague. “The aim in the government is that the global peacekeeping unit is will now take charge in disarming Hamas,” remarked the official lately. “It’s will require a while.” Trump further highlighted the lack of clarity, saying in an discussion on Sunday that there is no “hard” timeline for Hamas to disarm. So, in theory, the unidentified members of this not yet established global force could arrive in Gaza while Hamas militants still wield influence. Would they be dealing with a leadership or a militant faction? These represent only some of the questions emerging. Some might wonder what the verdict will be for everyday Palestinians under current conditions, with the group continuing to attack its own opponents and opposition.

Latest events have afresh emphasized the gaps of local media coverage on each side of the Gaza border. Each outlet strives to examine each potential aspect of Hamas’s violations of the peace. And, usually, the reality that Hamas has been hindering the return of the bodies of killed Israeli captives has dominated the headlines.

By contrast, coverage of civilian casualties in Gaza resulting from Israeli strikes has garnered minimal focus – if any. Take the Israeli response attacks after Sunday’s southern Gaza occurrence, in which a pair of military personnel were killed. While local sources stated dozens of deaths, Israeli news analysts criticised the “moderate reaction,” which focused on only installations.

This is typical. Over the past few days, the press agency accused Israel of breaking the truce with Hamas multiple occasions after the ceasefire began, killing 38 Palestinians and wounding another 143. The assertion appeared insignificant to the majority of Israeli news programmes – it was just missing. Even accounts that 11 members of a local family were killed by Israeli soldiers recently.

Gaza’s civil defence agency stated the individuals had been trying to return to their home in the Zeitoun area of Gaza City when the transport they were in was targeted for allegedly passing the “yellow line” that defines territories under Israeli army authority. That limit is invisible to the naked eye and shows up only on charts and in government papers – not always available to ordinary people in the region.

Even this incident hardly got a reference in Israeli journalism. One source referred to it briefly on its digital site, quoting an IDF representative who stated that after a questionable transport was detected, troops fired warning shots towards it, “but the transport kept to advance on the soldiers in a fashion that created an direct danger to them. The troops opened fire to eliminate the danger, in compliance with the truce.” No fatalities were stated.

Amid this narrative, it is no surprise numerous Israeli citizens think Hamas alone is to at fault for breaking the ceasefire. This view could lead to encouraging appeals for a more aggressive stance in the region.

Sooner or later – maybe in the near future – it will no longer be adequate for American representatives to act as supervisors, telling the Israeli government what to refrain from. They will {have to|need