🔗 Share this article

Thhese days exhibit a quite distinctive phenomenon: the inaugural US parade of the babysitters. Their qualifications differ in their expertise and traits, but they all have the common mission – to stop an Israeli infringement, or even destruction, of the delicate ceasefire. Since the war concluded, there have been rare occasions without at least one of the former president's delegates on the ground. Just recently featured the arrival of a senior advisor, a businessman, a senator and Marco Rubio – all arriving to perform their roles.

Israel keeps them busy. In only a few short period it launched a wave of operations in Gaza after the loss of a pair of Israeli military personnel – leading, according to reports, in many of Palestinian casualties. Several leaders demanded a renewal of the conflict, and the Knesset passed a preliminary measure to take over the occupied territories. The American stance was somewhere ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

However in various respects, the US leadership seems more intent on preserving the current, unstable phase of the truce than on advancing to the following: the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. Regarding that, it appears the US may have aspirations but little tangible plans.

For now, it remains unclear at what point the suggested global governing body will actually assume control, and the same goes for the appointed security force – or even the composition of its members. On a recent day, a US official declared the US would not dictate the membership of the foreign unit on Israel. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet continues to dismiss one alternative after another – as it did with the Ankara's offer this week – what happens then? There is also the contrary question: which party will determine whether the troops supported by the Israelis are even interested in the task?

The matter of how long it will require to demilitarize Hamas is just as unclear. “Our hope in the administration is that the multinational troops is will at this point assume responsibility in demilitarizing the organization,” remarked the official lately. “It’s going to take a while.” Trump only highlighted the lack of clarity, stating in an interview recently that there is no “fixed” timeline for Hamas to lay down arms. So, hypothetically, the unknown elements of this yet-to-be-formed international force could enter Gaza while Hamas members still remain in control. Would they be confronting a governing body or a militant faction? These represent only some of the issues emerging. Others might ask what the verdict will be for everyday civilians under current conditions, with Hamas persisting to attack its own opponents and critics.

Latest events have once again underscored the omissions of Israeli journalism on both sides of the Gazan border. Every outlet seeks to analyze every possible perspective of the group's infractions of the truce. And, in general, the situation that Hamas has been delaying the repatriation of the remains of deceased Israeli captives has monopolized the news.

By contrast, coverage of civilian deaths in Gaza resulting from Israeli strikes has obtained little attention – if any. Consider the Israeli retaliatory strikes following a recent southern Gaza incident, in which a pair of soldiers were fatally wounded. While Gaza’s sources reported 44 casualties, Israeli television pundits complained about the “limited response,” which targeted only facilities.

That is not new. Over the previous few days, the press agency charged Israel of breaking the peace with the group 47 times since the truce came into effect, resulting in the loss of 38 Palestinians and wounding an additional 143. The assertion seemed insignificant to the majority of Israeli media outlets – it was just missing. Even information that eleven individuals of a Palestinian family were lost their lives by Israeli troops last Friday.

The civil defence agency reported the group had been attempting to go back to their dwelling in the a Gaza City area of the city when the vehicle they were in was fired upon for reportedly passing the “boundary” that demarcates areas under Israeli military command. That boundary is not visible to the naked eye and appears solely on maps and in government papers – not always available to average people in the area.

Yet that incident barely rated a mention in Israeli media. One source referred to it in passing on its digital site, citing an IDF official who stated that after a suspicious transport was spotted, forces discharged cautionary rounds towards it, “but the car kept to advance on the soldiers in a manner that created an immediate risk to them. The soldiers shot to remove the danger, in accordance with the truce.” Zero fatalities were claimed.

With such framing, it is little wonder many Israelis feel the group exclusively is to responsible for breaking the peace. This perception risks prompting demands for a stronger stance in the region.

Eventually – possibly in the near future – it will no longer be enough for American representatives to take on the role of caretakers, advising Israel what to refrain from. They will {have to|need