🔗 Share this article

Thhese days showcase a quite unique phenomenon: the inaugural US procession of the overseers. They vary in their qualifications and characteristics, but they all share the same mission – to stop an Israeli infringement, or even demolition, of Gaza’s unstable peace agreement. Since the hostilities concluded, there have been few occasions without at least one of the former president's envoys on the scene. Just recently included the presence of a senior advisor, Steve Witkoff, JD Vance and Marco Rubio – all coming to carry out their duties.

The Israeli government engages them fully. In just a few short period it executed a wave of operations in Gaza after the loss of two Israeli military soldiers – leading, according to reports, in scores of local fatalities. Multiple leaders urged a renewal of the conflict, and the Israeli parliament enacted a preliminary resolution to incorporate the occupied territories. The American stance was somehow ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

However in more than one sense, the Trump administration seems more intent on upholding the existing, unstable stage of the ceasefire than on progressing to the following: the rebuilding of Gaza. Concerning that, it appears the US may have goals but little concrete proposals.

At present, it remains unclear at what point the planned international administrative entity will truly begin operating, and the identical is true for the designated military contingent – or even the makeup of its members. On a recent day, a US official stated the US would not force the structure of the international force on Israel. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration continues to dismiss various proposals – as it did with the Turkish suggestion lately – what follows? There is also the contrary issue: which party will establish whether the units favoured by the Israelis are even willing in the assignment?

The matter of the timeframe it will need to disarm the militant group is similarly unclear. “Our hope in the leadership is that the international security force is will at this point assume responsibility in neutralizing Hamas,” remarked Vance recently. “It’s may need a while.” The former president further emphasized the lack of clarity, declaring in an interview a few days ago that there is no “fixed” timeline for the group to demilitarize. So, hypothetically, the unknown elements of this not yet established international contingent could arrive in Gaza while the organization's fighters continue to remain in control. Would they be dealing with a leadership or a militant faction? Among the many of the concerns arising. Some might question what the outcome will be for ordinary Palestinians as things stand, with Hamas carrying on to focus on its own opponents and opposition.

Recent incidents have afresh emphasized the gaps of local reporting on the two sides of the Gazan border. Every outlet strives to analyze all conceivable aspect of the group's breaches of the truce. And, typically, the reality that Hamas has been hindering the return of the bodies of deceased Israeli hostages has taken over the coverage.

Conversely, coverage of non-combatant fatalities in the region resulting from Israeli strikes has obtained minimal attention – if any. Consider the Israeli retaliatory strikes following a recent Rafah incident, in which two soldiers were lost. While Gaza’s officials reported 44 fatalities, Israeli media commentators questioned the “light response,” which targeted just installations.

That is typical. Over the previous few days, Gaza’s information bureau accused Israel of violating the ceasefire with Hamas 47 occasions since the truce was implemented, killing dozens of Palestinians and injuring another many more. The allegation was irrelevant to most Israeli news programmes – it was just absent. Even accounts that eleven members of a Palestinian household were fatally shot by Israeli troops last Friday.

The emergency services said the family had been attempting to go back to their dwelling in the Zeitoun area of Gaza City when the bus they were in was fired upon for allegedly passing the “boundary” that marks territories under Israeli military command. That limit is unseen to the human eye and shows up just on charts and in government documents – sometimes not obtainable to average individuals in the area.

Yet this event barely got a mention in Israeli media. Channel 13 News mentioned it shortly on its online platform, referencing an Israeli military official who stated that after a suspicious vehicle was identified, troops discharged cautionary rounds towards it, “but the vehicle continued to approach the soldiers in a fashion that posed an immediate risk to them. The soldiers opened fire to eliminate the threat, in accordance with the agreement.” Zero injuries were stated.

Amid this narrative, it is no surprise numerous Israelis feel Hamas exclusively is to blame for violating the truce. This belief risks encouraging demands for a more aggressive approach in Gaza.

Eventually – maybe in the near future – it will no longer be adequate for US envoys to take on the role of supervisors, advising Israel what to refrain from. They will {have to|need