🔗 Share this article

Thhese days exhibit a quite unique phenomenon: the inaugural US parade of the caretakers. Their attributes range in their expertise and traits, but they all have the identical objective – to avert an Israeli infringement, or even demolition, of Gaza’s fragile ceasefire. After the hostilities concluded, there have been rare occasions without at least one of the former president's delegates on the ground. Just recently included the arrival of Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, a senator and Marco Rubio – all appearing to carry out their assignments.

The Israeli government engages them fully. In only a few days it launched a series of strikes in the region after the deaths of two Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers – resulting, based on accounts, in dozens of Palestinian injuries. A number of ministers demanded a restart of the war, and the Israeli parliament enacted a preliminary decision to annex the occupied territories. The US reaction was somewhere between “no” and “hell no.”

However in more than one sense, the US leadership seems more concentrated on preserving the present, uneasy period of the peace than on advancing to the next: the rebuilding of Gaza. Concerning this, it seems the United States may have ambitions but little specific proposals.

For now, it is unclear when the proposed international oversight committee will truly take power, and the same is true for the designated security force – or even the makeup of its members. On a recent day, Vance stated the US would not impose the composition of the international force on the Israeli government. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet persists to dismiss various proposals – as it acted with the Turkish offer lately – what follows? There is also the reverse question: which party will decide whether the troops supported by Israel are even prepared in the assignment?

The question of how long it will take to demilitarize Hamas is equally ambiguous. “The aim in the leadership is that the international security force is will at this point assume responsibility in demilitarizing Hamas,” stated the official recently. “It’s going to take some time.” Trump further emphasized the uncertainty, declaring in an interview on Sunday that there is no “hard” deadline for Hamas to demilitarize. So, in theory, the unnamed participants of this not yet established international contingent could deploy to the territory while Hamas militants still hold power. Would they be facing a leadership or a insurgent group? These represent only some of the questions surfacing. Others might question what the outcome will be for ordinary civilians as things stand, with Hamas carrying on to target its own political rivals and dissidents.

Latest events have afresh highlighted the blind spots of local journalism on both sides of the Gazan boundary. Every publication attempts to examine every possible angle of the group's violations of the peace. And, usually, the reality that the organization has been stalling the return of the bodies of slain Israeli captives has monopolized the headlines.

Conversely, attention of non-combatant casualties in the region stemming from Israeli strikes has received minimal attention – if at all. Consider the Israeli retaliatory attacks after a recent southern Gaza incident, in which two military personnel were fatally wounded. While local officials stated dozens of fatalities, Israeli media pundits complained about the “light reaction,” which targeted solely facilities.

That is typical. During the recent weekend, Gaza’s information bureau accused Israel of breaking the peace with the group 47 times after the truce came into effect, causing the death of 38 individuals and harming an additional many more. The assertion seemed unimportant to most Israeli reporting – it was merely missing. Even accounts that eleven members of a Palestinian family were killed by Israeli troops recently.

The emergency services reported the individuals had been seeking to go back to their home in the Zeitoun neighbourhood of the city when the transport they were in was fired upon for reportedly passing the “demarcation line” that demarcates territories under Israeli army command. This limit is invisible to the naked eye and shows up just on maps and in official records – sometimes not available to average residents in the territory.

Yet this incident hardly rated a reference in Israeli journalism. A major outlet mentioned it briefly on its website, quoting an IDF spokesperson who stated that after a suspicious vehicle was detected, soldiers fired cautionary rounds towards it, “but the transport persisted to advance on the soldiers in a fashion that posed an direct danger to them. The soldiers opened fire to remove the danger, in line with the truce.” Zero injuries were reported.

Given such perspective, it is no surprise numerous Israeli citizens think the group solely is to blame for violating the ceasefire. That view could lead to fuelling appeals for a stronger strategy in the region.

Eventually – possibly in the near future – it will not be sufficient for all the president’s men to take on the role of caretakers, telling Israel what to avoid. They will {have to|need