🔗 Share this article

These times present a very unusual situation: the inaugural US march of the babysitters. Their attributes range in their skills and traits, but they all possess the same goal – to stop an Israeli violation, or even destruction, of the delicate peace agreement. Since the war ended, there have been scant occasions without at least one of the former president's envoys on the territory. Just in the last few days saw the likes of a senior advisor, Steve Witkoff, JD Vance and Marco Rubio – all coming to perform their roles.

Israel keeps them busy. In only a few days it executed a set of attacks in Gaza after the killings of a pair of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers – resulting, based on accounts, in scores of local fatalities. A number of ministers urged a resumption of the conflict, and the Israeli parliament approved a early decision to annex the occupied territories. The US stance was somehow ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

But in several ways, the American government seems more intent on maintaining the current, uneasy stage of the peace than on advancing to the subsequent: the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. Regarding that, it seems the US may have ambitions but little tangible proposals.

Currently, it is uncertain at what point the proposed international oversight committee will truly take power, and the similar is true for the proposed peacekeeping troops – or even the makeup of its personnel. On a recent day, a US official stated the US would not force the composition of the international force on the Israeli government. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration keeps to reject one alternative after another – as it did with the Ankara's suggestion recently – what happens then? There is also the reverse issue: which party will establish whether the troops preferred by the Israelis are even prepared in the assignment?

The question of the duration it will need to demilitarize the militant group is equally ambiguous. “The expectation in the leadership is that the global peacekeeping unit is intends to at this point assume responsibility in disarming the organization,” stated the official this week. “That’s may need some time.” Trump further highlighted the ambiguity, stating in an interview a few days ago that there is no “fixed” deadline for the group to disarm. So, theoretically, the unidentified elements of this not yet established global force could enter the territory while Hamas militants continue to wield influence. Would they be dealing with a administration or a insurgent group? These are just a few of the concerns emerging. Some might wonder what the result will be for everyday residents under current conditions, with the group persisting to attack its own opponents and opposition.

Recent events have once again underscored the blind spots of Israeli reporting on the two sides of the Gazan boundary. Each outlet attempts to examine each potential angle of the group's violations of the ceasefire. And, usually, the situation that Hamas has been stalling the return of the remains of killed Israeli hostages has dominated the coverage.

Conversely, attention of non-combatant deaths in the region caused by Israeli strikes has received little focus – if at all. Consider the Israeli retaliatory actions after Sunday’s southern Gaza event, in which two soldiers were killed. While local officials claimed 44 fatalities, Israeli media commentators criticised the “light answer,” which focused on only facilities.

That is typical. During the recent weekend, the information bureau accused Israel of breaking the truce with Hamas multiple times after the ceasefire came into effect, killing 38 Palestinians and harming an additional many more. The allegation seemed unimportant to the majority of Israeli media outlets – it was just absent. That included accounts that 11 individuals of a Palestinian household were lost their lives by Israeli troops last Friday.

The civil defence agency said the individuals had been seeking to go back to their residence in the Zeitoun neighbourhood of the city when the bus they were in was fired upon for allegedly passing the “yellow line” that demarcates territories under Israeli army authority. This yellow line is invisible to the human eye and is visible just on maps and in official documents – not always available to average residents in the region.

Even this incident scarcely got a reference in Israeli journalism. Channel 13 News covered it briefly on its online platform, referencing an IDF representative who stated that after a suspicious transport was detected, soldiers fired alerting fire towards it, “but the vehicle continued to advance on the troops in a manner that posed an immediate threat to them. The soldiers engaged to neutralize the threat, in line with the ceasefire.” No fatalities were claimed.

Given such perspective, it is no surprise many Israelis think the group solely is to at fault for infringing the ceasefire. That view threatens fuelling demands for a tougher approach in the region.

Eventually – maybe sooner rather than later – it will no longer be adequate for all the president’s men to act as supervisors, advising the Israeli government what to avoid. They will {have to|need