🔗 Share this article

These times present a very unusual phenomenon: the pioneering US march of the caretakers. They vary in their skills and traits, but they all share the common mission – to avert an Israeli breach, or even devastation, of Gaza’s delicate peace agreement. After the conflict concluded, there have been scant days without at least one of Donald Trump’s delegates on the ground. Just recently saw the presence of Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, JD Vance and Marco Rubio – all coming to perform their roles.

The Israeli government keeps them busy. In only a few short period it executed a set of strikes in Gaza after the loss of a pair of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers – leading, based on accounts, in dozens of local fatalities. Multiple leaders urged a resumption of the war, and the Knesset approved a initial measure to take over the West Bank. The American stance was somewhere ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

However in various respects, the US leadership appears more focused on preserving the existing, tense stage of the ceasefire than on moving to the subsequent: the reconstruction of Gaza. When it comes to this, it seems the United States may have aspirations but little concrete proposals.

At present, it is uncertain at what point the planned multinational oversight committee will actually begin operating, and the same is true for the designated peacekeeping troops – or even the makeup of its soldiers. On a recent day, a US official said the United States would not impose the structure of the international unit on the Israeli government. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet persists to dismiss multiple options – as it did with the Ankara's offer this week – what follows? There is also the opposite question: which party will decide whether the troops supported by Israel are even willing in the mission?

The question of the duration it will take to disarm Hamas is equally ambiguous. “Our hope in the administration is that the international security force is will at this point take the lead in neutralizing the organization,” said Vance recently. “It’s will require a while.” The former president further reinforced the uncertainty, saying in an interview on Sunday that there is no “fixed” deadline for Hamas to lay down arms. So, hypothetically, the unknown members of this not yet established global force could deploy to Gaza while Hamas fighters continue to wield influence. Are they confronting a leadership or a insurgent group? These are just a few of the concerns surfacing. Some might question what the result will be for average civilians in the present situation, with Hamas carrying on to focus on its own political rivals and dissidents.

Recent developments have afresh highlighted the gaps of local media coverage on both sides of the Gaza frontier. Each outlet seeks to scrutinize every possible perspective of the group's breaches of the ceasefire. And, usually, the situation that the organization has been hindering the repatriation of the remains of deceased Israeli captives has taken over the coverage.

On the other hand, reporting of non-combatant fatalities in the region caused by Israeli strikes has received minimal notice – or none. Consider the Israeli counter strikes following Sunday’s Rafah occurrence, in which a pair of troops were killed. While Gaza’s authorities stated 44 casualties, Israeli television commentators questioned the “light response,” which focused on just infrastructure.

This is typical. During the previous few days, Gaza’s media office accused Israeli forces of violating the truce with Hamas multiple times after the ceasefire began, causing the death of dozens of individuals and injuring another 143. The assertion appeared unimportant to the majority of Israeli news programmes – it was just missing. This applied to reports that eleven individuals of a Palestinian family were killed by Israeli troops a few days ago.

Gaza’s emergency services reported the individuals had been seeking to return to their residence in the a Gaza City neighbourhood of the city when the bus they were in was attacked for reportedly passing the “boundary” that marks zones under Israeli army authority. That boundary is not visible to the naked eye and appears only on maps and in official papers – often not obtainable to ordinary individuals in the area.

Even this occurrence barely rated a reference in Israeli media. A major outlet covered it shortly on its online platform, referencing an Israeli military official who said that after a suspicious vehicle was identified, troops discharged alerting fire towards it, “but the car continued to approach the troops in a manner that caused an imminent threat to them. The troops shot to neutralize the threat, in compliance with the ceasefire.” No fatalities were reported.

Given such perspective, it is understandable many Israeli citizens believe Hamas exclusively is to at fault for breaking the peace. That perception threatens prompting calls for a tougher approach in Gaza.

Sooner or later – possibly in the near future – it will not be adequate for US envoys to act as supervisors, telling the Israeli government what to refrain from. They will {have to|need