🔗 Share this article

These times present a quite unusual phenomenon: the first-ever US parade of the overseers. Their attributes range in their skills and traits, but they all have the same mission – to prevent an Israeli breach, or even destruction, of Gaza’s delicate peace agreement. After the conflict concluded, there have been few occasions without at least one of the former president's delegates on the ground. Only recently saw the presence of Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, JD Vance and Marco Rubio – all coming to carry out their roles.

The Israeli government keeps them busy. In only a few days it launched a series of operations in the region after the loss of a pair of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) personnel – resulting, according to reports, in scores of local injuries. Several ministers demanded a renewal of the conflict, and the Knesset approved a preliminary decision to incorporate the occupied territories. The US reaction was somewhere ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

However in several ways, the US leadership seems more intent on preserving the existing, unstable phase of the peace than on advancing to the following: the rehabilitation of Gaza. When it comes to this, it seems the United States may have aspirations but no specific plans.

Currently, it remains unclear when the proposed multinational oversight committee will actually begin operating, and the similar goes for the designated military contingent – or even the identity of its soldiers. On Tuesday, a US official declared the United States would not impose the structure of the international contingent on the Israeli government. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration persists to dismiss multiple options – as it acted with the Ankara's proposal recently – what happens then? There is also the opposite issue: which party will determine whether the troops preferred by Israel are even interested in the assignment?

The issue of how long it will need to neutralize the militant group is equally ambiguous. “Our hope in the government is that the multinational troops is will now assume responsibility in demilitarizing the organization,” stated Vance recently. “That’s going to take a while.” The former president only emphasized the ambiguity, declaring in an interview recently that there is no “fixed” schedule for the group to disarm. So, in theory, the unknown members of this still unformed international contingent could enter Gaza while the organization's fighters still wield influence. Are they facing a leadership or a insurgent group? These are just a few of the issues arising. Some might ask what the verdict will be for ordinary civilians in the present situation, with Hamas persisting to target its own opponents and opposition.

Recent events have afresh emphasized the gaps of local journalism on each side of the Gaza border. Each outlet seeks to analyze each potential aspect of Hamas’s violations of the peace. And, usually, the reality that the organization has been hindering the return of the remains of deceased Israeli hostages has taken over the coverage.

By contrast, reporting of non-combatant fatalities in the region caused by Israeli strikes has garnered scant focus – if at all. Take the Israeli response attacks in the wake of a recent southern Gaza incident, in which two troops were killed. While local sources stated dozens of deaths, Israeli television commentators complained about the “light reaction,” which targeted only installations.

This is not new. During the past weekend, the press agency accused Israeli forces of infringing the truce with Hamas multiple times since the truce began, resulting in the loss of dozens of individuals and injuring an additional many more. The allegation appeared unimportant to the majority of Israeli media outlets – it was merely absent. Even reports that eleven individuals of a Palestinian household were fatally shot by Israeli troops last Friday.

Gaza’s emergency services said the group had been seeking to return to their dwelling in the Zeitoun neighbourhood of Gaza City when the vehicle they were in was fired upon for allegedly going over the “demarcation line” that defines territories under Israeli army authority. This limit is invisible to the naked eye and appears just on charts and in government documents – often not available to everyday people in the area.

Even that occurrence scarcely got a reference in Israeli journalism. Channel 13 News covered it in passing on its online platform, referencing an Israeli military spokesperson who explained that after a questionable car was detected, forces shot warning shots towards it, “but the transport kept to approach the soldiers in a fashion that created an direct risk to them. The troops opened fire to eliminate the threat, in accordance with the ceasefire.” Zero casualties were reported.

Given this narrative, it is understandable a lot of Israelis feel Hamas solely is to responsible for breaking the peace. This view risks fuelling demands for a stronger strategy in Gaza.

Sooner or later – possibly sooner rather than later – it will not be adequate for all the president’s men to act as supervisors, telling Israel what not to do. They will {have to|need