🔗 Share this article

These times showcase a quite unusual phenomenon: the first-ever US procession of the babysitters. Their qualifications differ in their qualifications and traits, but they all possess the common objective – to avert an Israeli breach, or even demolition, of Gaza’s delicate peace agreement. Since the hostilities concluded, there have been few days without at least one of the former president's envoys on the scene. Only in the last few days included the arrival of Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, JD Vance and a political figure – all arriving to perform their roles.

Israel occupies their time. In only a few days it launched a set of strikes in the region after the loss of two Israeli military troops – leading, based on accounts, in many of Palestinian fatalities. Several officials called for a renewal of the fighting, and the Israeli parliament enacted a initial measure to incorporate the occupied territories. The American stance was somehow ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

Yet in various respects, the Trump administration appears more concentrated on maintaining the existing, uneasy period of the truce than on advancing to the following: the rebuilding of Gaza. Concerning this, it seems the United States may have goals but few concrete proposals.

Currently, it remains unclear when the proposed international oversight committee will effectively take power, and the same applies to the proposed security force – or even the composition of its personnel. On a recent day, Vance declared the United States would not impose the membership of the international unit on Israel. But if the prime minister's government keeps to dismiss multiple options – as it did with the Ankara's proposal lately – what follows? There is also the opposite issue: who will establish whether the units supported by the Israelis are even interested in the mission?

The issue of how long it will take to neutralize the militant group is just as vague. “The aim in the leadership is that the multinational troops is going to at this point take the lead in neutralizing the organization,” said Vance recently. “That’s may need a while.” Trump further highlighted the ambiguity, declaring in an discussion on Sunday that there is no “hard” schedule for Hamas to disarm. So, hypothetically, the unnamed elements of this yet-to-be-formed global contingent could enter Gaza while the organization's militants continue to remain in control. Would they be facing a administration or a guerrilla movement? Among the many of the questions arising. Some might ask what the result will be for average civilians in the present situation, with the group carrying on to attack its own adversaries and opposition.

Current developments have afresh highlighted the gaps of Israeli media coverage on each side of the Gazan border. Each outlet strives to analyze every possible perspective of Hamas’s breaches of the truce. And, typically, the fact that Hamas has been hindering the repatriation of the bodies of killed Israeli hostages has monopolized the news.

On the other hand, coverage of non-combatant deaths in the region stemming from Israeli attacks has received scant notice – if at all. Consider the Israeli retaliatory strikes following a recent southern Gaza event, in which two troops were lost. While Gaza’s sources stated dozens of deaths, Israeli news commentators complained about the “limited response,” which targeted just facilities.

That is not new. Over the previous few days, Gaza’s information bureau accused Israeli forces of breaking the ceasefire with the group multiple times after the agreement was implemented, causing the death of 38 individuals and injuring another many more. The assertion seemed insignificant to the majority of Israeli reporting – it was merely missing. That included accounts that 11 members of a Palestinian household were fatally shot by Israeli forces recently.

Gaza’s rescue organization stated the group had been attempting to go back to their home in the Zeitoun area of the city when the bus they were in was fired upon for allegedly going over the “boundary” that demarcates areas under Israeli military command. That limit is not visible to the naked eye and shows up solely on plans and in official papers – sometimes not accessible to ordinary people in the area.

Even this occurrence barely got a note in Israeli journalism. One source referred to it shortly on its website, citing an Israeli military official who said that after a suspect car was detected, soldiers fired alerting fire towards it, “but the transport continued to move toward the troops in a fashion that posed an direct danger to them. The troops opened fire to eliminate the risk, in accordance with the agreement.” Zero injuries were claimed.

Amid such narrative, it is no surprise many Israeli citizens feel the group exclusively is to responsible for infringing the truce. That view threatens encouraging appeals for a tougher stance in Gaza.

Eventually – possibly sooner than expected – it will no longer be sufficient for all the president’s men to take on the role of supervisors, advising the Israeli government what to avoid. They will {have to|need