🔗 Share this article

These times showcase a very unusual phenomenon: the pioneering US procession of the babysitters. Their qualifications differ in their skills and attributes, but they all have the common mission – to avert an Israeli infringement, or even demolition, of the delicate peace agreement. Since the conflict concluded, there have been few days without at least one of the former president's representatives on the scene. Just recently included the presence of a senior advisor, Steve Witkoff, a senator and a political figure – all appearing to perform their roles.

Israel keeps them busy. In just a few days it launched a series of operations in Gaza after the killings of two Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops – resulting, as reported, in dozens of Palestinian fatalities. Multiple officials called for a resumption of the war, and the Israeli parliament passed a early measure to annex the occupied territories. The American reaction was somehow ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

But in more than one sense, the Trump administration seems more concentrated on preserving the present, uneasy phase of the truce than on advancing to the next: the reconstruction of Gaza. Concerning this, it appears the United States may have aspirations but few concrete strategies.

For now, it remains uncertain at what point the suggested global governing body will truly take power, and the similar is true for the appointed peacekeeping troops – or even the identity of its members. On Tuesday, a US official said the US would not force the composition of the foreign unit on Israel. But if the prime minister's administration continues to refuse one alternative after another – as it acted with the Ankara's proposal this week – what follows? There is also the contrary issue: who will decide whether the units supported by Israel are even willing in the assignment?

The issue of the duration it will take to demilitarize the militant group is equally ambiguous. “The aim in the leadership is that the global peacekeeping unit is intends to at this point take the lead in disarming Hamas,” remarked the official this week. “It’s may need a while.” Trump further emphasized the uncertainty, declaring in an interview recently that there is no “fixed” deadline for Hamas to lay down arms. So, theoretically, the unknown members of this still unformed global contingent could enter the territory while the organization's members continue to hold power. Would they be confronting a administration or a guerrilla movement? These represent only some of the issues arising. Some might question what the verdict will be for everyday civilians under current conditions, with the group continuing to focus on its own political rivals and dissidents.

Latest events have afresh emphasized the omissions of local media coverage on each side of the Gazan frontier. Each publication strives to scrutinize every possible perspective of Hamas’s breaches of the truce. And, usually, the fact that the organization has been stalling the return of the remains of killed Israeli captives has dominated the headlines.

On the other hand, attention of civilian casualties in Gaza caused by Israeli operations has received scant attention – if at all. Take the Israeli response strikes following a recent southern Gaza occurrence, in which two soldiers were lost. While Gaza’s authorities claimed dozens of deaths, Israeli television analysts questioned the “moderate reaction,” which hit just facilities.

This is nothing new. Over the past weekend, the information bureau charged Israeli forces of infringing the peace with Hamas 47 times after the truce began, causing the death of 38 Palestinians and wounding an additional many more. The assertion seemed irrelevant to most Israeli news programmes – it was just missing. This applied to accounts that eleven individuals of a local household were fatally shot by Israeli forces last Friday.

Gaza’s emergency services reported the group had been attempting to go back to their home in the Zeitoun area of Gaza City when the bus they were in was fired upon for allegedly crossing the “yellow line” that demarcates areas under Israeli military control. That boundary is unseen to the naked eye and appears solely on plans and in official papers – often not obtainable to everyday people in the territory.

Yet that occurrence hardly rated a reference in Israeli journalism. Channel 13 News covered it shortly on its online platform, citing an IDF official who said that after a suspicious vehicle was detected, forces discharged cautionary rounds towards it, “but the car persisted to move toward the troops in a way that created an immediate threat to them. The troops opened fire to neutralize the threat, in accordance with the truce.” Zero injuries were reported.

With such narrative, it is little wonder a lot of Israeli citizens believe the group solely is to blame for infringing the truce. This perception risks encouraging demands for a stronger stance in the region.

Sooner or later – perhaps sooner rather than later – it will no longer be sufficient for American representatives to take on the role of caretakers, advising Israel what to avoid. They will {have to|need