🔗 Share this article

These days exhibit a very unusual occurrence: the first-ever US parade of the babysitters. Their attributes range in their expertise and characteristics, but they all share the same objective – to avert an Israeli violation, or even demolition, of the unstable ceasefire. After the war concluded, there have been rare days without at least one of the former president's delegates on the scene. Just this past week featured the arrival of Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, a senator and a political figure – all appearing to carry out their duties.

Israel occupies their time. In just a few short period it executed a set of operations in the region after the killings of a pair of Israeli military troops – leading, according to reports, in many of local injuries. A number of ministers demanded a restart of the war, and the Knesset passed a early measure to take over the West Bank. The American reaction was somewhere ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

Yet in more than one sense, the American government seems more focused on maintaining the present, unstable stage of the ceasefire than on progressing to the subsequent: the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. Regarding this, it seems the United States may have aspirations but no specific plans.

Currently, it remains unclear when the suggested multinational governing body will effectively take power, and the same applies to the proposed military contingent – or even the identity of its personnel. On Tuesday, a US official stated the United States would not dictate the structure of the international unit on the Israeli government. But if the prime minister's cabinet continues to refuse various proposals – as it did with the Turkish proposal lately – what occurs next? There is also the opposite issue: who will decide whether the forces preferred by the Israelis are even prepared in the mission?

The matter of the timeframe it will take to disarm Hamas is similarly vague. “The expectation in the leadership is that the international security force is will at this point take the lead in disarming the organization,” said the official lately. “It’s may need a while.” The former president further emphasized the uncertainty, stating in an interview recently that there is no “hard” deadline for the group to demilitarize. So, theoretically, the unidentified participants of this not yet established international contingent could deploy to the territory while Hamas fighters continue to hold power. Are they confronting a administration or a insurgent group? These are just a few of the questions surfacing. Others might question what the verdict will be for average residents as things stand, with Hamas persisting to target its own opponents and critics.

Current incidents have yet again underscored the blind spots of Israeli journalism on the two sides of the Gaza border. Every source attempts to analyze each potential angle of the group's violations of the peace. And, typically, the reality that the organization has been stalling the return of the bodies of killed Israeli captives has dominated the headlines.

By contrast, attention of non-combatant casualties in Gaza stemming from Israeli operations has received scant attention – if any. Consider the Israeli response actions after a recent Rafah event, in which a pair of troops were killed. While Gaza’s sources claimed 44 deaths, Israeli news commentators criticised the “moderate reaction,” which targeted solely installations.

This is typical. Over the recent weekend, the information bureau charged Israeli forces of infringing the truce with Hamas multiple occasions since the agreement began, killing 38 individuals and wounding another 143. The allegation seemed irrelevant to the majority of Israeli media outlets – it was just absent. Even accounts that eleven individuals of a Palestinian household were lost their lives by Israeli soldiers last Friday.

The civil defence agency reported the group had been attempting to return to their home in the Zeitoun area of Gaza City when the transport they were in was attacked for allegedly passing the “boundary” that marks zones under Israeli military command. This limit is not visible to the human eye and is visible solely on charts and in government documents – often not obtainable to everyday residents in the territory.

Yet that event barely got a reference in Israeli news outlets. A major outlet referred to it briefly on its website, quoting an IDF official who said that after a suspicious car was detected, soldiers discharged alerting fire towards it, “but the car kept to approach the forces in a manner that created an immediate risk to them. The troops opened fire to remove the risk, in line with the agreement.” Zero fatalities were reported.

Given this framing, it is understandable a lot of Israelis think Hamas alone is to responsible for breaking the ceasefire. This perception risks prompting calls for a tougher stance in Gaza.

Eventually – perhaps in the near future – it will no longer be sufficient for US envoys to take on the role of supervisors, telling Israel what not to do. They will {have to|need