🔗 Share this article

These times present a very unique situation: the pioneering US march of the babysitters. They vary in their expertise and traits, but they all possess the identical objective – to prevent an Israeli violation, or even demolition, of Gaza’s fragile peace agreement. After the war ended, there have been scant days without at least one of the former president's representatives on the ground. Just recently included the arrival of Jared Kushner, a businessman, JD Vance and Marco Rubio – all appearing to perform their duties.

The Israeli government keeps them busy. In only a few short period it launched a wave of attacks in the region after the deaths of a pair of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers – leading, based on accounts, in scores of Palestinian fatalities. A number of ministers called for a renewal of the conflict, and the Israeli parliament approved a early decision to annex the West Bank. The American reaction was somewhere ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

Yet in various respects, the American government seems more intent on maintaining the present, unstable stage of the peace than on moving to the following: the reconstruction of Gaza. Regarding that, it seems the United States may have aspirations but little specific plans.

At present, it is unclear when the proposed multinational oversight committee will effectively assume control, and the identical goes for the appointed security force – or even the makeup of its members. On Tuesday, a US official said the US would not force the membership of the international force on Israel. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s government keeps to refuse various proposals – as it did with the Ankara's offer recently – what happens then? There is also the opposite issue: who will determine whether the troops preferred by Israel are even interested in the assignment?

The issue of how long it will take to disarm Hamas is similarly ambiguous. “The aim in the government is that the international security force is going to now take charge in disarming the organization,” said the official lately. “That’s may need a while.” The former president only emphasized the ambiguity, saying in an conversation on Sunday that there is no “hard” schedule for Hamas to lay down arms. So, theoretically, the unknown participants of this yet-to-be-formed international contingent could enter the territory while the organization's fighters still remain in control. Are they dealing with a leadership or a guerrilla movement? These represent only some of the concerns surfacing. Others might ask what the outcome will be for ordinary Palestinians in the present situation, with the group persisting to focus on its own adversaries and critics.

Latest developments have yet again underscored the gaps of Israeli reporting on each side of the Gaza frontier. Each outlet strives to examine each potential aspect of the group's breaches of the peace. And, typically, the fact that Hamas has been hindering the repatriation of the remains of deceased Israeli captives has dominated the coverage.

On the other hand, reporting of civilian casualties in the region stemming from Israeli operations has received minimal focus – if at all. Consider the Israeli counter actions after Sunday’s southern Gaza incident, in which two soldiers were killed. While Gaza’s officials reported 44 fatalities, Israeli news analysts complained about the “light answer,” which focused on just installations.

This is typical. Over the past few days, Gaza’s media office charged Israel of infringing the truce with the group multiple occasions after the truce came into effect, causing the death of dozens of individuals and harming another 143. The allegation appeared irrelevant to most Israeli reporting – it was simply ignored. This applied to information that 11 individuals of a Palestinian household were killed by Israeli soldiers recently.

The civil defence agency reported the individuals had been seeking to go back to their home in the Zeitoun neighbourhood of the city when the bus they were in was targeted for reportedly passing the “demarcation line” that defines areas under Israeli army command. That yellow line is unseen to the human eye and appears only on maps and in official papers – not always obtainable to average residents in the territory.

Yet that incident hardly got a note in Israeli media. One source covered it shortly on its website, quoting an Israeli military representative who explained that after a suspicious transport was detected, soldiers shot warning shots towards it, “but the car persisted to approach the troops in a way that caused an direct threat to them. The soldiers opened fire to neutralize the threat, in line with the truce.” Zero casualties were reported.

Given such narrative, it is no surprise numerous Israelis feel Hamas exclusively is to responsible for infringing the peace. That belief risks prompting appeals for a stronger stance in the region.

Eventually – maybe sooner than expected – it will not be adequate for American representatives to take on the role of supervisors, advising Israel what to avoid. They will {have to|need