🔗 Share this article

These times exhibit a very unusual phenomenon: the inaugural US march of the caretakers. They vary in their qualifications and attributes, but they all have the same objective – to stop an Israeli infringement, or even destruction, of Gaza’s unstable peace agreement. After the war finished, there have been few days without at least one of the former president's delegates on the ground. Just recently included the presence of a senior advisor, a businessman, JD Vance and a political figure – all arriving to perform their assignments.

The Israeli government keeps them busy. In just a few days it executed a set of strikes in Gaza after the deaths of two Israeli military troops – resulting, according to reports, in many of Palestinian casualties. Multiple leaders demanded a resumption of the conflict, and the Knesset enacted a early decision to take over the occupied territories. The American reaction was somewhere between “no” and “hell no.”

But in more than one sense, the US leadership seems more focused on preserving the current, tense period of the truce than on moving to the next: the rehabilitation of the Gaza Strip. Concerning this, it looks the United States may have goals but no tangible plans.

At present, it remains uncertain at what point the proposed multinational oversight committee will actually begin operating, and the identical applies to the designated security force – or even the composition of its soldiers. On Tuesday, Vance said the United States would not dictate the composition of the foreign contingent on Israel. But if the prime minister's government keeps to reject multiple options – as it did with the Turkish proposal lately – what happens then? There is also the reverse question: who will determine whether the units preferred by the Israelis are even prepared in the task?

The matter of how long it will take to neutralize the militant group is equally ambiguous. “Our hope in the government is that the international security force is intends to now assume responsibility in neutralizing the organization,” stated Vance this week. “It’s going to take some time.” The former president only emphasized the uncertainty, declaring in an interview recently that there is no “hard” schedule for the group to demilitarize. So, hypothetically, the unnamed participants of this yet-to-be-formed international contingent could deploy to the territory while the organization's militants still remain in control. Would they be facing a leadership or a militant faction? Among the many of the concerns surfacing. Some might ask what the result will be for ordinary civilians as things stand, with the group carrying on to attack its own opponents and critics.

Latest events have once again highlighted the omissions of local reporting on the two sides of the Gazan boundary. Every publication seeks to analyze each potential perspective of Hamas’s infractions of the peace. And, usually, the reality that Hamas has been delaying the return of the bodies of slain Israeli hostages has taken over the coverage.

By contrast, coverage of non-combatant deaths in the region resulting from Israeli strikes has received minimal notice – if any. Consider the Israeli counter strikes after Sunday’s Rafah incident, in which a pair of troops were fatally wounded. While local authorities reported dozens of deaths, Israeli media pundits questioned the “moderate reaction,” which hit solely installations.

That is typical. During the recent weekend, Gaza’s information bureau accused Israeli forces of infringing the ceasefire with the group multiple times since the agreement came into effect, resulting in the loss of dozens of individuals and wounding an additional 143. The claim appeared insignificant to most Israeli news programmes – it was simply absent. Even reports that eleven individuals of a Palestinian household were lost their lives by Israeli forces a few days ago.

The rescue organization stated the individuals had been attempting to go back to their home in the a Gaza City area of Gaza City when the bus they were in was attacked for allegedly crossing the “demarcation line” that defines areas under Israeli army command. That limit is invisible to the ordinary view and appears only on charts and in authoritative records – not always obtainable to everyday people in the region.

Yet this event hardly rated a mention in Israeli journalism. A major outlet referred to it briefly on its digital site, referencing an Israeli military official who stated that after a suspect transport was spotted, forces fired cautionary rounds towards it, “but the car persisted to advance on the soldiers in a manner that created an imminent danger to them. The forces opened fire to neutralize the danger, in compliance with the agreement.” Zero injuries were claimed.

With such narrative, it is no surprise a lot of Israeli citizens believe the group alone is to blame for breaking the ceasefire. This belief threatens encouraging appeals for a more aggressive strategy in Gaza.

Sooner or later – maybe in the near future – it will no longer be adequate for all the president’s men to act as caretakers, telling the Israeli government what to refrain from. They will {have to|need