🔗 Share this article

Thhese days exhibit a quite unusual phenomenon: the inaugural US procession of the overseers. Their qualifications differ in their expertise and traits, but they all share the same mission – to prevent an Israeli breach, or even destruction, of the delicate truce. After the hostilities concluded, there have been rare occasions without at least one of the former president's envoys on the ground. Just in the last few days included the presence of Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, a senator and a political figure – all appearing to carry out their roles.

Israel occupies their time. In just a few short period it initiated a wave of strikes in the region after the killings of a pair of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) personnel – leading, as reported, in dozens of Palestinian casualties. A number of leaders called for a resumption of the war, and the Knesset enacted a initial resolution to take over the West Bank. The US reaction was somehow ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

Yet in various respects, the US leadership appears more intent on upholding the present, unstable period of the truce than on moving to the next: the rehabilitation of the Gaza Strip. Concerning that, it looks the US may have ambitions but no concrete proposals.

Currently, it remains unclear at what point the planned multinational governing body will truly begin operating, and the same applies to the designated peacekeeping troops – or even the identity of its soldiers. On a recent day, a US official stated the US would not dictate the composition of the international contingent on Israel. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration continues to reject multiple options – as it acted with the Ankara's proposal recently – what follows? There is also the opposite issue: which party will establish whether the troops supported by the Israelis are even prepared in the task?

The matter of the duration it will require to demilitarize Hamas is similarly vague. “The aim in the administration is that the multinational troops is intends to at this point take charge in demilitarizing Hamas,” stated the official lately. “That’s may need some time.” Trump only highlighted the lack of clarity, stating in an discussion a few days ago that there is no “fixed” schedule for Hamas to lay down arms. So, theoretically, the unidentified elements of this still unformed global contingent could enter the territory while the organization's fighters continue to hold power. Are they facing a governing body or a insurgent group? These are just a few of the questions surfacing. Some might question what the outcome will be for ordinary Palestinians under current conditions, with the group carrying on to target its own adversaries and opposition.

Current events have once again highlighted the omissions of Israeli reporting on each side of the Gazan border. Each publication attempts to scrutinize each potential aspect of the group's breaches of the ceasefire. And, usually, the reality that the organization has been delaying the repatriation of the bodies of killed Israeli hostages has taken over the headlines.

On the other hand, attention of non-combatant casualties in Gaza caused by Israeli strikes has garnered little focus – if at all. Consider the Israeli retaliatory actions following a recent southern Gaza event, in which a pair of military personnel were fatally wounded. While local sources reported 44 deaths, Israeli media pundits questioned the “light response,” which hit only installations.

That is nothing new. During the recent weekend, the press agency charged Israeli forces of violating the peace with Hamas multiple times after the agreement came into effect, resulting in the loss of dozens of Palestinians and wounding another 143. The claim appeared unimportant to most Israeli media outlets – it was simply missing. Even information that 11 individuals of a local household were fatally shot by Israeli soldiers recently.

Gaza’s civil defence agency stated the family had been seeking to return to their dwelling in the a Gaza City area of the city when the transport they were in was targeted for supposedly passing the “yellow line” that defines areas under Israeli military control. That limit is not visible to the human eye and is visible just on charts and in government records – often not accessible to average people in the region.

Even this incident scarcely got a reference in Israeli news outlets. Channel 13 News covered it briefly on its digital site, citing an IDF official who explained that after a suspicious transport was spotted, troops discharged warning shots towards it, “but the transport kept to move toward the forces in a fashion that posed an imminent danger to them. The forces shot to neutralize the risk, in line with the truce.” Zero casualties were stated.

With such framing, it is understandable a lot of Israelis believe the group solely is to blame for infringing the truce. This view threatens encouraging appeals for a tougher strategy in the region.

At some point – possibly in the near future – it will not be sufficient for American representatives to take on the role of caretakers, telling Israel what to avoid. They will {have to|need