🔗 Share this article

These days present a quite unusual phenomenon: the first-ever US parade of the overseers. They vary in their expertise and traits, but they all share the identical mission – to prevent an Israeli infringement, or even destruction, of the unstable ceasefire. Since the hostilities concluded, there have been scant occasions without at least one of Donald Trump’s representatives on the ground. Just recently featured the arrival of Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, JD Vance and Marco Rubio – all arriving to perform their duties.

Israel occupies their time. In just a few days it executed a set of attacks in Gaza after the loss of a pair of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) personnel – resulting, according to reports, in dozens of Palestinian casualties. A number of leaders demanded a restart of the fighting, and the Israeli parliament enacted a initial resolution to incorporate the West Bank. The American reaction was somehow between “no” and “hell no.”

Yet in more than one sense, the Trump administration seems more focused on maintaining the current, tense period of the truce than on moving to the next: the rebuilding of Gaza. When it comes to that, it seems the United States may have aspirations but little tangible strategies.

At present, it remains unclear at what point the suggested multinational administrative entity will actually take power, and the same applies to the appointed security force – or even the identity of its members. On a recent day, a US official declared the United States would not force the membership of the foreign contingent on Israel. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s government persists to dismiss various proposals – as it acted with the Turkish offer recently – what happens then? There is also the opposite issue: who will determine whether the units preferred by Israel are even interested in the mission?

The issue of the duration it will require to disarm Hamas is similarly unclear. “Our hope in the government is that the multinational troops is intends to at this point take the lead in disarming Hamas,” stated the official this week. “It’s may need some time.” The former president further highlighted the ambiguity, saying in an discussion recently that there is no “fixed” deadline for Hamas to disarm. So, in theory, the unknown members of this still unformed global contingent could deploy to the territory while Hamas fighters still remain in control. Would they be dealing with a governing body or a militant faction? These are just a few of the issues arising. Some might ask what the verdict will be for ordinary residents under current conditions, with the group persisting to attack its own political rivals and critics.

Recent events have once again emphasized the omissions of local media coverage on both sides of the Gazan boundary. Every publication attempts to examine every possible aspect of the group's breaches of the peace. And, usually, the reality that the organization has been hindering the repatriation of the bodies of killed Israeli captives has monopolized the coverage.

On the other hand, coverage of non-combatant casualties in the region caused by Israeli operations has obtained little attention – if any. Take the Israeli counter strikes after Sunday’s southern Gaza incident, in which two troops were lost. While Gaza’s authorities stated 44 deaths, Israeli television analysts questioned the “light answer,” which targeted just facilities.

This is typical. During the previous weekend, Gaza’s information bureau accused Israeli forces of infringing the ceasefire with the group multiple occasions since the ceasefire began, resulting in the loss of dozens of Palestinians and harming an additional 143. The claim appeared insignificant to the majority of Israeli news programmes – it was simply ignored. This applied to reports that eleven individuals of a local household were fatally shot by Israeli soldiers recently.

The rescue organization said the individuals had been attempting to go back to their home in the Zeitoun area of the city when the vehicle they were in was attacked for supposedly crossing the “yellow line” that defines zones under Israeli army control. This yellow line is unseen to the human eye and shows up solely on charts and in official records – not always accessible to everyday residents in the territory.

Yet that event barely received a note in Israeli news outlets. One source covered it briefly on its online platform, quoting an IDF official who said that after a suspicious vehicle was detected, troops shot cautionary rounds towards it, “but the vehicle persisted to approach the soldiers in a way that posed an immediate danger to them. The troops opened fire to eliminate the threat, in line with the truce.” Zero casualties were stated.

Amid this narrative, it is no surprise many Israelis believe Hamas solely is to at fault for breaking the peace. This perception risks fuelling appeals for a stronger approach in the region.

Eventually – maybe in the near future – it will not be adequate for American representatives to act as supervisors, telling Israel what to refrain from. They will {have to|need