🔗 Share this article

These times showcase a very unique situation: the inaugural US march of the caretakers. Their qualifications differ in their skills and attributes, but they all have the identical mission – to stop an Israeli breach, or even destruction, of the delicate truce. After the hostilities concluded, there have been scant days without at least one of the former president's representatives on the territory. Only recently included the arrival of Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, a senator and a political figure – all coming to carry out their roles.

The Israeli government occupies their time. In just a few days it launched a series of operations in Gaza after the killings of two Israeli military troops – resulting, according to reports, in dozens of Palestinian casualties. A number of ministers called for a resumption of the conflict, and the Knesset approved a early measure to take over the occupied territories. The US reaction was somewhere ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

Yet in various respects, the Trump administration appears more focused on maintaining the existing, tense stage of the truce than on moving to the subsequent: the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. When it comes to that, it looks the United States may have aspirations but little tangible plans.

For now, it is unknown when the proposed multinational governing body will effectively begin operating, and the similar applies to the proposed peacekeeping troops – or even the identity of its personnel. On a recent day, Vance said the US would not force the composition of the foreign force on the Israeli government. But if the prime minister's administration persists to reject various proposals – as it did with the Ankara's suggestion lately – what occurs next? There is also the reverse issue: which party will decide whether the troops preferred by the Israelis are even interested in the assignment?

The issue of the timeframe it will require to disarm Hamas is just as ambiguous. “Our hope in the administration is that the international security force is will now take the lead in demilitarizing the organization,” stated Vance recently. “It’s may need a while.” Trump only highlighted the uncertainty, declaring in an interview on Sunday that there is no “fixed” deadline for Hamas to lay down arms. So, in theory, the unidentified members of this yet-to-be-formed international force could deploy to the territory while the organization's militants continue to hold power. Are they dealing with a leadership or a insurgent group? Among the many of the concerns arising. Others might ask what the verdict will be for ordinary residents as things stand, with Hamas carrying on to attack its own opponents and opposition.

Latest events have yet again emphasized the gaps of local reporting on the two sides of the Gaza border. Each source strives to analyze all conceivable perspective of the group's infractions of the peace. And, in general, the situation that the organization has been delaying the return of the remains of slain Israeli captives has dominated the coverage.

On the other hand, attention of non-combatant casualties in Gaza stemming from Israeli strikes has garnered minimal notice – if any. Consider the Israeli counter attacks following Sunday’s Rafah occurrence, in which a pair of troops were fatally wounded. While local sources stated dozens of fatalities, Israeli television analysts criticised the “limited reaction,” which focused on solely facilities.

This is not new. Over the past few days, the media office accused Israel of violating the truce with Hamas 47 times since the agreement began, resulting in the loss of 38 Palestinians and harming an additional 143. The assertion appeared irrelevant to the majority of Israeli media outlets – it was simply ignored. This applied to information that eleven members of a local household were fatally shot by Israeli soldiers recently.

Gaza’s emergency services said the group had been seeking to go back to their residence in the Zeitoun area of Gaza City when the bus they were in was targeted for allegedly passing the “yellow line” that marks territories under Israeli army command. That yellow line is invisible to the human eye and shows up just on maps and in authoritative records – not always obtainable to average people in the region.

Yet this incident hardly received a reference in Israeli media. A major outlet referred to it in passing on its website, referencing an IDF representative who said that after a suspect transport was identified, troops fired alerting fire towards it, “but the car persisted to move toward the troops in a manner that caused an imminent danger to them. The soldiers shot to remove the threat, in compliance with the truce.” No casualties were reported.

Given such narrative, it is no surprise a lot of Israelis think the group solely is to blame for breaking the peace. That perception risks prompting demands for a more aggressive approach in the region.

At some point – possibly sooner rather than later – it will no longer be enough for US envoys to take on the role of caretakers, instructing Israel what to refrain from. They will {have to|need