🔗 Share this article

These times exhibit a very unusual occurrence: the pioneering US march of the caretakers. Their attributes range in their expertise and attributes, but they all share the common mission – to prevent an Israeli breach, or even demolition, of Gaza’s fragile peace agreement. Since the hostilities concluded, there have been scant occasions without at least one of Donald Trump’s delegates on the territory. Only in the last few days saw the arrival of Jared Kushner, a businessman, JD Vance and Marco Rubio – all coming to perform their roles.

Israel engages them fully. In only a few short period it initiated a series of operations in the region after the deaths of a pair of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops – resulting, according to reports, in many of Palestinian fatalities. Several officials called for a resumption of the conflict, and the Israeli parliament enacted a early measure to incorporate the occupied territories. The American stance was somehow between “no” and “hell no.”

However in several ways, the Trump administration appears more intent on upholding the present, unstable phase of the peace than on progressing to the subsequent: the rehabilitation of Gaza. When it comes to that, it looks the US may have aspirations but no concrete proposals.

For now, it is unknown when the proposed international administrative entity will truly begin operating, and the similar applies to the proposed security force – or even the makeup of its personnel. On a recent day, Vance stated the United States would not impose the membership of the international force on Israel. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration continues to reject various proposals – as it did with the Ankara's proposal recently – what happens then? There is also the opposite issue: who will decide whether the troops supported by the Israelis are even willing in the mission?

The matter of the timeframe it will need to neutralize Hamas is just as ambiguous. “The aim in the leadership is that the international security force is going to at this point take charge in disarming Hamas,” remarked Vance recently. “It’s may need some time.” The former president only highlighted the lack of clarity, stating in an discussion recently that there is no “rigid” deadline for Hamas to lay down arms. So, in theory, the unidentified participants of this yet-to-be-formed global force could enter Gaza while the organization's militants still wield influence. Are they facing a governing body or a guerrilla movement? These are just a few of the concerns arising. Others might wonder what the outcome will be for everyday residents in the present situation, with Hamas continuing to attack its own opponents and dissidents.

Recent events have yet again emphasized the blind spots of local media coverage on the two sides of the Gaza frontier. Each publication seeks to analyze all conceivable angle of the group's breaches of the peace. And, usually, the fact that Hamas has been stalling the return of the bodies of slain Israeli hostages has taken over the coverage.

Conversely, coverage of civilian deaths in Gaza caused by Israeli operations has obtained minimal attention – if at all. Consider the Israeli retaliatory strikes following Sunday’s southern Gaza event, in which two soldiers were fatally wounded. While local officials reported dozens of casualties, Israeli media pundits criticised the “light response,” which targeted just infrastructure.

This is nothing new. Over the past weekend, Gaza’s media office accused Israeli forces of violating the truce with the group multiple times since the agreement was implemented, killing 38 Palestinians and injuring another many more. The assertion appeared insignificant to the majority of Israeli news programmes – it was merely missing. That included accounts that eleven individuals of a local household were lost their lives by Israeli soldiers recently.

The emergency services stated the individuals had been attempting to go back to their home in the a Gaza City area of Gaza City when the vehicle they were in was fired upon for reportedly crossing the “demarcation line” that marks zones under Israeli military authority. That limit is not visible to the human eye and shows up solely on plans and in official records – often not obtainable to ordinary people in the territory.

Even this incident hardly rated a mention in Israeli news outlets. One source covered it in passing on its website, citing an IDF official who explained that after a suspicious transport was spotted, troops shot cautionary rounds towards it, “but the transport continued to move toward the soldiers in a manner that posed an imminent danger to them. The soldiers opened fire to neutralize the threat, in compliance with the truce.” Zero casualties were claimed.

Given such narrative, it is no surprise numerous Israelis think the group alone is to at fault for violating the peace. This view risks fuelling calls for a stronger strategy in the region.

Sooner or later – perhaps sooner rather than later – it will not be enough for all the president’s men to take on the role of supervisors, advising the Israeli government what to refrain from. They will {have to|need