🔗 Share this article

These days present a very distinctive situation: the pioneering US march of the overseers. They vary in their skills and traits, but they all share the common mission – to stop an Israeli violation, or even demolition, of Gaza’s fragile ceasefire. Since the war concluded, there have been few occasions without at least one of Donald Trump’s delegates on the scene. Only this past week included the likes of a senior advisor, Steve Witkoff, JD Vance and a political figure – all coming to carry out their duties.

The Israeli government engages them fully. In just a few days it initiated a set of operations in Gaza after the loss of two Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops – resulting, based on accounts, in many of Palestinian injuries. Several ministers urged a restart of the fighting, and the Israeli parliament enacted a initial decision to annex the occupied territories. The American reaction was somehow between “no” and “hell no.”

However in more than one sense, the American government appears more intent on maintaining the current, uneasy stage of the peace than on progressing to the following: the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. Concerning that, it appears the United States may have goals but little specific plans.

At present, it remains unknown when the planned multinational oversight committee will truly begin operating, and the identical applies to the proposed peacekeeping troops – or even the identity of its soldiers. On Tuesday, a US official declared the US would not impose the composition of the international contingent on Israel. But if the prime minister's cabinet continues to refuse various proposals – as it acted with the Turkish suggestion recently – what occurs next? There is also the reverse issue: who will establish whether the troops favoured by the Israelis are even interested in the task?

The issue of the duration it will take to disarm the militant group is equally unclear. “The expectation in the leadership is that the multinational troops is will at this point take charge in neutralizing Hamas,” said the official recently. “That’s going to take a period.” Trump only reinforced the lack of clarity, saying in an interview on Sunday that there is no “rigid” deadline for the group to demilitarize. So, theoretically, the unidentified elements of this not yet established international force could arrive in Gaza while the organization's militants still remain in control. Are they confronting a governing body or a guerrilla movement? Among the many of the issues surfacing. Others might ask what the outcome will be for everyday Palestinians as things stand, with the group carrying on to focus on its own adversaries and dissidents.

Latest events have once again highlighted the gaps of local reporting on each side of the Gaza boundary. Every publication seeks to analyze every possible angle of the group's violations of the truce. And, typically, the reality that the organization has been stalling the return of the bodies of slain Israeli hostages has dominated the news.

By contrast, attention of civilian casualties in Gaza caused by Israeli attacks has garnered minimal focus – or none. Consider the Israeli response strikes following Sunday’s southern Gaza incident, in which a pair of soldiers were killed. While Gaza’s officials reported dozens of casualties, Israeli news commentators questioned the “light answer,” which targeted just installations.

This is not new. During the previous few days, the information bureau accused Israel of breaking the truce with Hamas multiple occasions after the truce began, causing the death of dozens of individuals and wounding another many more. The allegation seemed insignificant to the majority of Israeli news programmes – it was simply missing. This applied to reports that 11 members of a Palestinian household were killed by Israeli forces recently.

Gaza’s emergency services stated the individuals had been seeking to go back to their home in the a Gaza City area of Gaza City when the bus they were in was attacked for reportedly crossing the “yellow line” that demarcates areas under Israeli military authority. That boundary is invisible to the naked eye and appears just on charts and in authoritative documents – often not obtainable to ordinary residents in the area.

Yet that event scarcely received a mention in Israeli media. Channel 13 News referred to it shortly on its website, referencing an Israeli military representative who said that after a suspicious car was spotted, forces shot alerting fire towards it, “but the vehicle continued to advance on the soldiers in a manner that posed an direct threat to them. The soldiers engaged to neutralize the threat, in accordance with the ceasefire.” Zero casualties were claimed.

Amid this framing, it is understandable numerous Israeli citizens think Hamas alone is to blame for infringing the truce. This belief risks encouraging calls for a stronger stance in the region.

At some point – maybe in the near future – it will no longer be enough for all the president’s men to act as caretakers, instructing Israel what to refrain from. They will {have to|need