🔗 Share this article

These times showcase a quite unique occurrence: the inaugural US parade of the overseers. They vary in their skills and characteristics, but they all possess the same goal – to stop an Israeli infringement, or even destruction, of the unstable ceasefire. After the war finished, there have been rare days without at least one of the former president's representatives on the territory. Just recently featured the arrival of Jared Kushner, a businessman, a senator and a political figure – all arriving to perform their assignments.

Israel keeps them busy. In just a few short period it initiated a wave of operations in Gaza after the loss of two Israeli military soldiers – resulting, as reported, in many of local fatalities. Several officials called for a renewal of the fighting, and the Israeli parliament enacted a preliminary measure to take over the occupied territories. The US response was somehow between “no” and “hell no.”

Yet in more than one sense, the American government seems more concentrated on upholding the current, uneasy period of the ceasefire than on moving to the next: the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. Concerning this, it looks the US may have goals but no specific proposals.

For now, it remains uncertain at what point the planned multinational oversight committee will actually begin operating, and the similar goes for the proposed peacekeeping troops – or even the composition of its soldiers. On a recent day, a US official declared the US would not force the structure of the international force on the Israeli government. But if the prime minister's administration continues to dismiss various proposals – as it did with the Turkish suggestion recently – what occurs next? There is also the reverse issue: which party will determine whether the units preferred by Israel are even interested in the task?

The matter of the timeframe it will require to disarm the militant group is equally vague. “The aim in the administration is that the global peacekeeping unit is going to now assume responsibility in disarming Hamas,” stated the official recently. “It’s going to take a period.” Trump only highlighted the lack of clarity, stating in an interview recently that there is no “hard” timeline for the group to lay down arms. So, hypothetically, the unknown elements of this still unformed international force could enter the territory while the organization's militants continue to hold power. Are they facing a administration or a guerrilla movement? Among the many of the concerns emerging. Some might question what the outcome will be for ordinary Palestinians under current conditions, with Hamas continuing to focus on its own adversaries and opposition.

Current incidents have once again emphasized the blind spots of local media coverage on both sides of the Gazan frontier. Each source seeks to scrutinize every possible angle of Hamas’s breaches of the ceasefire. And, typically, the fact that the organization has been hindering the repatriation of the bodies of slain Israeli hostages has dominated the coverage.

By contrast, reporting of civilian fatalities in Gaza stemming from Israeli strikes has received little notice – if at all. Consider the Israeli response attacks following Sunday’s southern Gaza occurrence, in which two military personnel were killed. While Gaza’s sources stated 44 deaths, Israeli media commentators complained about the “moderate answer,” which hit just facilities.

That is typical. During the recent few days, Gaza’s information bureau accused Israel of infringing the peace with the group 47 times since the truce was implemented, causing the death of dozens of Palestinians and harming an additional 143. The assertion appeared irrelevant to the majority of Israeli reporting – it was simply ignored. Even information that eleven individuals of a local family were lost their lives by Israeli soldiers a few days ago.

The emergency services said the individuals had been attempting to go back to their residence in the Zeitoun district of the city when the transport they were in was fired upon for supposedly going over the “yellow line” that demarcates territories under Israeli army control. This yellow line is unseen to the ordinary view and is visible solely on plans and in government documents – not always obtainable to everyday individuals in the region.

Yet that occurrence hardly rated a reference in Israeli media. A major outlet referred to it shortly on its online platform, citing an IDF official who stated that after a questionable transport was identified, soldiers fired cautionary rounds towards it, “but the car kept to move toward the troops in a way that posed an immediate threat to them. The soldiers engaged to neutralize the danger, in compliance with the agreement.” No injuries were stated.

With this framing, it is understandable a lot of Israeli citizens feel Hamas solely is to blame for infringing the truce. This perception threatens fuelling appeals for a stronger strategy in the region.

At some point – possibly in the near future – it will no longer be sufficient for US envoys to act as supervisors, telling Israel what not to do. They will {have to|need