🔗 Share this article

Thhese times present a very distinctive phenomenon: the pioneering US parade of the overseers. Their qualifications differ in their qualifications and attributes, but they all possess the identical objective – to prevent an Israeli violation, or even devastation, of the fragile truce. Since the war finished, there have been few days without at least one of the former president's representatives on the scene. Only in the last few days saw the arrival of a senior advisor, a businessman, a senator and Marco Rubio – all appearing to execute their roles.

The Israeli government engages them fully. In just a few days it launched a set of operations in the region after the loss of a pair of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) personnel – leading, according to reports, in dozens of local casualties. Multiple leaders demanded a renewal of the war, and the Knesset enacted a preliminary measure to incorporate the West Bank. The US response was somewhere ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

Yet in various respects, the US leadership seems more concentrated on preserving the existing, tense phase of the peace than on advancing to the next: the rebuilding of the Gaza Strip. Regarding this, it looks the United States may have goals but few concrete strategies.

At present, it remains uncertain when the suggested international oversight committee will actually take power, and the same applies to the appointed peacekeeping troops – or even the identity of its personnel. On a recent day, Vance declared the United States would not dictate the membership of the international contingent on Israel. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet persists to reject multiple options – as it acted with the Ankara's offer lately – what happens then? There is also the contrary point: who will determine whether the units preferred by the Israelis are even willing in the mission?

The issue of the timeframe it will require to demilitarize Hamas is equally unclear. “Our hope in the leadership is that the international security force is going to at this point take the lead in disarming the organization,” said Vance recently. “That’s may need a while.” The former president only highlighted the uncertainty, stating in an discussion on Sunday that there is no “fixed” deadline for Hamas to disarm. So, hypothetically, the unnamed participants of this not yet established international contingent could deploy to the territory while Hamas fighters continue to remain in control. Would they be dealing with a governing body or a insurgent group? These represent only some of the concerns surfacing. Others might question what the outcome will be for average residents as things stand, with the group carrying on to target its own political rivals and critics.

Recent incidents have yet again underscored the gaps of Israeli journalism on each side of the Gazan frontier. Each publication seeks to analyze every possible angle of Hamas’s breaches of the peace. And, usually, the fact that Hamas has been delaying the return of the remains of slain Israeli hostages has monopolized the news.

By contrast, reporting of non-combatant casualties in Gaza caused by Israeli operations has received minimal notice – if at all. Take the Israeli retaliatory attacks in the wake of a recent Rafah occurrence, in which two military personnel were lost. While local officials stated dozens of deaths, Israeli news analysts complained about the “limited answer,” which focused on only facilities.

That is nothing new. Over the recent weekend, the information bureau alleged Israel of breaking the peace with Hamas multiple occasions since the ceasefire began, resulting in the loss of 38 Palestinians and wounding another 143. The claim seemed insignificant to most Israeli news programmes – it was just ignored. That included accounts that eleven individuals of a local household were lost their lives by Israeli soldiers a few days ago.

The emergency services stated the family had been seeking to go back to their dwelling in the a Gaza City neighbourhood of Gaza City when the vehicle they were in was fired upon for allegedly crossing the “yellow line” that marks zones under Israeli military authority. That boundary is unseen to the ordinary view and shows up solely on charts and in official documents – often not available to ordinary individuals in the area.

Yet this event hardly rated a reference in Israeli journalism. One source mentioned it shortly on its online platform, referencing an IDF spokesperson who said that after a suspicious vehicle was detected, forces fired warning shots towards it, “but the car kept to move toward the forces in a way that posed an imminent threat to them. The soldiers shot to neutralize the threat, in accordance with the ceasefire.” No casualties were claimed.

Given such narrative, it is no surprise numerous Israeli citizens believe Hamas exclusively is to responsible for breaking the ceasefire. That view could lead to fuelling demands for a stronger stance in Gaza.

At some point – possibly sooner rather than later – it will not be sufficient for US envoys to act as caretakers, advising Israel what to refrain from. They will {have to|need