🔗 Share this article

These times showcase a quite unique situation: the first-ever US march of the caretakers. Their attributes range in their expertise and characteristics, but they all share the common objective – to stop an Israeli breach, or even devastation, of the unstable peace agreement. After the conflict concluded, there have been rare occasions without at least one of the former president's delegates on the ground. Just in the last few days featured the arrival of a senior advisor, Steve Witkoff, JD Vance and Marco Rubio – all coming to perform their duties.

Israel occupies their time. In only a few short period it initiated a series of strikes in the region after the killings of a pair of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) personnel – resulting, based on accounts, in dozens of Palestinian fatalities. Multiple ministers urged a restart of the fighting, and the Israeli parliament approved a early measure to incorporate the West Bank. The US stance was somewhere between “no” and “hell no.”

But in more than one sense, the Trump administration seems more intent on maintaining the current, unstable stage of the peace than on progressing to the following: the rehabilitation of the Gaza Strip. Regarding this, it looks the US may have goals but no concrete strategies.

At present, it remains unclear when the proposed multinational administrative entity will actually begin operating, and the similar is true for the designated security force – or even the makeup of its members. On Tuesday, Vance said the United States would not force the membership of the international force on the Israeli government. But if the prime minister's government keeps to refuse multiple options – as it did with the Ankara's proposal this week – what happens then? There is also the reverse issue: who will decide whether the forces preferred by Israel are even interested in the task?

The question of how long it will need to disarm Hamas is just as vague. “The aim in the leadership is that the global peacekeeping unit is going to now take charge in disarming the organization,” stated the official recently. “That’s going to take a while.” The former president only highlighted the uncertainty, declaring in an conversation recently that there is no “rigid” deadline for the group to demilitarize. So, in theory, the unknown participants of this yet-to-be-formed global force could arrive in Gaza while Hamas members continue to wield influence. Would they be facing a governing body or a guerrilla movement? These are just a few of the issues emerging. Others might ask what the outcome will be for average civilians in the present situation, with the group persisting to focus on its own adversaries and opposition.

Latest incidents have yet again highlighted the blind spots of Israeli reporting on the two sides of the Gazan frontier. Each source seeks to scrutinize every possible angle of the group's breaches of the peace. And, typically, the fact that the organization has been stalling the return of the bodies of deceased Israeli captives has dominated the coverage.

Conversely, attention of civilian deaths in the region stemming from Israeli strikes has received minimal notice – if any. Take the Israeli response attacks in the wake of a recent southern Gaza occurrence, in which two military personnel were fatally wounded. While Gaza’s sources reported 44 fatalities, Israeli television commentators complained about the “moderate reaction,” which hit just infrastructure.

That is not new. During the previous few days, Gaza’s media office accused Israeli forces of violating the ceasefire with Hamas 47 times since the ceasefire began, killing dozens of Palestinians and wounding another 143. The allegation seemed irrelevant to most Israeli reporting – it was merely ignored. This applied to accounts that eleven individuals of a local household were killed by Israeli soldiers last Friday.

The civil defence agency said the family had been trying to go back to their residence in the a Gaza City neighbourhood of Gaza City when the bus they were in was attacked for supposedly passing the “demarcation line” that demarcates territories under Israeli army control. This limit is unseen to the naked eye and is visible just on plans and in government documents – not always available to average residents in the territory.

Yet this occurrence scarcely got a mention in Israeli journalism. A major outlet referred to it shortly on its website, referencing an Israeli military spokesperson who explained that after a suspect vehicle was identified, soldiers fired alerting fire towards it, “but the car continued to move toward the soldiers in a fashion that caused an imminent danger to them. The soldiers opened fire to eliminate the risk, in compliance with the truce.” No casualties were reported.

Given this narrative, it is understandable numerous Israelis think the group solely is to responsible for infringing the ceasefire. That perception could lead to fuelling demands for a tougher stance in Gaza.

Sooner or later – possibly sooner rather than later – it will not be sufficient for American representatives to take on the role of supervisors, instructing the Israeli government what not to do. They will {have to|need