🔗 Share this article

These times exhibit a very distinctive situation: the inaugural US march of the caretakers. Their qualifications differ in their expertise and attributes, but they all share the same goal – to stop an Israeli breach, or even demolition, of Gaza’s fragile peace agreement. Since the conflict finished, there have been rare occasions without at least one of Donald Trump’s envoys on the territory. Just recently saw the arrival of a senior advisor, a businessman, a senator and Marco Rubio – all arriving to carry out their assignments.

Israel occupies their time. In just a few short period it executed a series of strikes in the region after the killings of two Israeli military soldiers – resulting, as reported, in dozens of local casualties. A number of officials called for a resumption of the conflict, and the Knesset passed a preliminary measure to incorporate the occupied territories. The US stance was somehow ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

However in more than one sense, the Trump administration appears more concentrated on upholding the existing, unstable period of the ceasefire than on progressing to the following: the rebuilding of Gaza. Concerning this, it seems the United States may have aspirations but little tangible proposals.

For now, it remains unknown at what point the planned global oversight committee will actually take power, and the same goes for the appointed peacekeeping troops – or even the makeup of its soldiers. On a recent day, a US official stated the US would not force the composition of the international force on the Israeli government. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet continues to dismiss one alternative after another – as it did with the Turkish offer this week – what follows? There is also the reverse issue: which party will establish whether the forces favoured by Israel are even prepared in the task?

The issue of how long it will need to demilitarize Hamas is similarly ambiguous. “The expectation in the administration is that the multinational troops is intends to now take charge in demilitarizing the organization,” stated the official this week. “That’s may need a while.” The former president only reinforced the uncertainty, stating in an discussion on Sunday that there is no “rigid” schedule for the group to disarm. So, hypothetically, the unknown elements of this still unformed international force could arrive in the territory while Hamas fighters still remain in control. Would they be confronting a governing body or a guerrilla movement? These represent only some of the questions arising. Some might ask what the outcome will be for average residents under current conditions, with the group persisting to attack its own political rivals and critics.

Current developments have once again highlighted the blind spots of Israeli media coverage on each side of the Gazan border. Each source strives to examine every possible angle of the group's infractions of the peace. And, in general, the fact that Hamas has been delaying the return of the bodies of slain Israeli captives has monopolized the news.

By contrast, reporting of civilian casualties in the region stemming from Israeli strikes has obtained scant attention – if any. Take the Israeli retaliatory strikes following a recent Rafah occurrence, in which two troops were lost. While Gaza’s sources reported 44 deaths, Israeli media analysts criticised the “limited answer,” which focused on just facilities.

That is nothing new. Over the recent few days, the information bureau charged Israel of breaking the peace with Hamas 47 times since the agreement came into effect, killing 38 individuals and wounding an additional many more. The claim appeared insignificant to the majority of Israeli media outlets – it was merely absent. Even information that 11 members of a Palestinian family were lost their lives by Israeli forces recently.

The emergency services reported the individuals had been attempting to return to their dwelling in the a Gaza City district of Gaza City when the bus they were in was attacked for reportedly crossing the “yellow line” that marks territories under Israeli military control. That yellow line is invisible to the naked eye and appears just on maps and in authoritative records – not always obtainable to ordinary individuals in the region.

Yet this incident barely received a mention in Israeli journalism. One source covered it briefly on its website, citing an Israeli military spokesperson who explained that after a suspicious vehicle was identified, soldiers discharged alerting fire towards it, “but the vehicle continued to move toward the soldiers in a fashion that posed an imminent risk to them. The troops opened fire to neutralize the danger, in line with the truce.” Zero casualties were reported.

Given this framing, it is little wonder numerous Israelis feel Hamas exclusively is to blame for breaking the truce. This view threatens encouraging calls for a tougher strategy in the region.

At some point – maybe sooner than expected – it will no longer be sufficient for all the president’s men to act as supervisors, advising the Israeli government what to refrain from. They will {have to|need