🔗 Share this article

These times exhibit a quite unusual phenomenon: the pioneering US procession of the overseers. Their qualifications differ in their skills and attributes, but they all have the same mission – to prevent an Israeli breach, or even destruction, of the unstable truce. After the conflict finished, there have been scant occasions without at least one of the former president's envoys on the scene. Only this past week featured the arrival of a senior advisor, Steve Witkoff, JD Vance and Marco Rubio – all arriving to carry out their assignments.

Israel keeps them busy. In only a few short period it launched a series of operations in the region after the loss of two Israeli military soldiers – resulting, based on accounts, in dozens of local casualties. Several officials called for a renewal of the conflict, and the Knesset enacted a preliminary resolution to incorporate the West Bank. The US reaction was somewhere ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

But in various respects, the Trump administration seems more concentrated on maintaining the present, unstable phase of the peace than on advancing to the next: the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. Regarding that, it seems the United States may have ambitions but little concrete plans.

At present, it is uncertain at what point the suggested multinational governing body will effectively begin operating, and the identical applies to the proposed peacekeeping troops – or even the composition of its members. On Tuesday, Vance said the US would not force the composition of the foreign contingent on Israel. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet keeps to reject one alternative after another – as it acted with the Ankara's suggestion lately – what follows? There is also the opposite question: which party will establish whether the troops preferred by the Israelis are even prepared in the mission?

The issue of the duration it will take to disarm the militant group is just as ambiguous. “The aim in the leadership is that the international security force is going to now assume responsibility in disarming Hamas,” said the official recently. “That’s may need a while.” The former president only reinforced the lack of clarity, stating in an interview recently that there is no “fixed” deadline for the group to lay down arms. So, theoretically, the unidentified members of this still unformed international force could arrive in Gaza while Hamas fighters still remain in control. Would they be facing a administration or a guerrilla movement? These are just a few of the questions surfacing. Others might question what the outcome will be for average civilians under current conditions, with Hamas continuing to target its own adversaries and opposition.

Current developments have yet again highlighted the gaps of local media coverage on each side of the Gazan border. Every source strives to analyze all conceivable angle of the group's breaches of the peace. And, in general, the reality that the organization has been stalling the repatriation of the bodies of killed Israeli captives has dominated the coverage.

By contrast, attention of civilian fatalities in Gaza stemming from Israeli operations has received minimal notice – or none. Consider the Israeli response strikes in the wake of Sunday’s Rafah event, in which two soldiers were fatally wounded. While local officials reported 44 fatalities, Israeli media commentators questioned the “light answer,” which targeted just installations.

This is not new. During the previous few days, Gaza’s media office accused Israel of infringing the truce with the group 47 times after the truce began, causing the death of 38 individuals and harming another many more. The assertion appeared insignificant to most Israeli news programmes – it was merely missing. This applied to information that 11 members of a Palestinian household were lost their lives by Israeli soldiers last Friday.

The emergency services stated the family had been trying to return to their home in the Zeitoun neighbourhood of the city when the vehicle they were in was targeted for supposedly going over the “yellow line” that demarcates territories under Israeli army control. This limit is invisible to the naked eye and is visible solely on plans and in government papers – not always accessible to ordinary residents in the territory.

Even this occurrence scarcely got a note in Israeli journalism. One source covered it shortly on its website, citing an IDF spokesperson who said that after a suspect car was identified, soldiers shot warning shots towards it, “but the transport persisted to advance on the troops in a manner that posed an imminent risk to them. The troops shot to remove the threat, in accordance with the truce.” Zero fatalities were claimed.

Given such perspective, it is no surprise a lot of Israelis believe Hamas alone is to responsible for violating the truce. This perception threatens fuelling appeals for a stronger strategy in the region.

Sooner or later – maybe in the near future – it will not be sufficient for US envoys to take on the role of kindergarten teachers, advising Israel what to refrain from. They will {have to|need