🔗 Share this article

Thhese days present a quite unusual occurrence: the first-ever US procession of the overseers. Their attributes range in their qualifications and traits, but they all possess the common objective – to prevent an Israeli breach, or even demolition, of the delicate ceasefire. Since the conflict ended, there have been few days without at least one of the former president's representatives on the scene. Only this past week saw the arrival of a senior advisor, Steve Witkoff, a senator and a political figure – all arriving to perform their roles.

The Israeli government keeps them busy. In only a few days it initiated a set of attacks in Gaza after the killings of two Israeli military personnel – leading, as reported, in dozens of Palestinian casualties. Multiple officials called for a resumption of the fighting, and the Israeli parliament approved a preliminary resolution to incorporate the occupied territories. The American reaction was somehow between “no” and “hell no.”

Yet in various respects, the Trump administration appears more focused on maintaining the current, tense phase of the peace than on moving to the subsequent: the reconstruction of Gaza. When it comes to that, it appears the US may have goals but no tangible plans.

For now, it remains unclear at what point the suggested multinational administrative entity will truly take power, and the same goes for the designated military contingent – or even the makeup of its members. On a recent day, Vance said the US would not dictate the membership of the international force on the Israeli government. But if the prime minister's administration continues to refuse one alternative after another – as it did with the Ankara's proposal this week – what follows? There is also the contrary point: which party will determine whether the units preferred by Israel are even prepared in the mission?

The question of the duration it will require to demilitarize Hamas is similarly ambiguous. “The aim in the government is that the global peacekeeping unit is going to at this point assume responsibility in disarming the organization,” remarked Vance this week. “It’s may need a period.” The former president only emphasized the lack of clarity, saying in an interview on Sunday that there is no “hard” deadline for Hamas to demilitarize. So, in theory, the unnamed members of this still unformed global force could enter the territory while Hamas members still remain in control. Are they dealing with a leadership or a insurgent group? These are just a few of the issues surfacing. Some might ask what the verdict will be for ordinary civilians as things stand, with the group carrying on to target its own opponents and opposition.

Current incidents have yet again emphasized the gaps of Israeli reporting on each side of the Gaza boundary. Each publication attempts to analyze all conceivable aspect of the group's violations of the ceasefire. And, usually, the situation that the organization has been delaying the repatriation of the remains of slain Israeli captives has dominated the headlines.

Conversely, reporting of civilian deaths in Gaza stemming from Israeli operations has obtained minimal focus – or none. Take the Israeli counter actions after a recent Rafah incident, in which a pair of troops were killed. While Gaza’s sources reported 44 fatalities, Israeli media analysts questioned the “moderate response,” which focused on just infrastructure.

That is typical. During the previous few days, Gaza’s media office accused Israeli forces of breaking the ceasefire with Hamas multiple occasions after the ceasefire came into effect, resulting in the loss of dozens of individuals and wounding another 143. The claim seemed irrelevant to the majority of Israeli media outlets – it was just absent. Even accounts that 11 individuals of a local household were killed by Israeli soldiers last Friday.

The emergency services said the family had been trying to return to their dwelling in the a Gaza City area of the city when the bus they were in was attacked for reportedly going over the “boundary” that defines zones under Israeli military control. That boundary is not visible to the human eye and is visible only on maps and in authoritative papers – sometimes not available to average people in the area.

Yet that occurrence barely rated a reference in Israeli news outlets. A major outlet referred to it briefly on its online platform, citing an IDF representative who stated that after a suspicious transport was detected, troops discharged cautionary rounds towards it, “but the vehicle continued to advance on the troops in a manner that posed an direct threat to them. The soldiers engaged to neutralize the threat, in compliance with the agreement.” No injuries were stated.

With this narrative, it is little wonder many Israeli citizens feel Hamas exclusively is to blame for breaking the ceasefire. This perception could lead to encouraging calls for a tougher stance in Gaza.

Sooner or later – possibly sooner rather than later – it will no longer be sufficient for all the president’s men to act as kindergarten teachers, telling Israel what to avoid. They will {have to|need