🔗 Share this article

Thhese days exhibit a quite unique occurrence: the inaugural US parade of the overseers. They vary in their expertise and attributes, but they all have the common mission – to prevent an Israeli violation, or even destruction, of Gaza’s delicate truce. After the war ended, there have been scant occasions without at least one of the former president's envoys on the territory. Only in the last few days included the arrival of a senior advisor, a businessman, a senator and Marco Rubio – all appearing to carry out their assignments.

Israel keeps them busy. In only a few days it launched a set of attacks in the region after the loss of two Israel Defense Forces (IDF) personnel – leading, based on accounts, in dozens of local injuries. Multiple officials called for a restart of the conflict, and the Israeli parliament approved a initial decision to take over the occupied territories. The US stance was somehow ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

But in more than one sense, the American government seems more focused on upholding the present, unstable phase of the peace than on advancing to the following: the rebuilding of Gaza. Concerning that, it seems the US may have aspirations but little specific plans.

At present, it remains uncertain at what point the suggested international oversight committee will effectively take power, and the same goes for the appointed military contingent – or even the identity of its members. On Tuesday, a US official declared the United States would not impose the structure of the international force on Israel. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet continues to dismiss multiple options – as it did with the Turkish suggestion lately – what happens then? There is also the reverse point: who will establish whether the troops favoured by Israel are even prepared in the task?

The issue of the timeframe it will need to neutralize the militant group is just as vague. “The aim in the leadership is that the global peacekeeping unit is intends to at this point take the lead in neutralizing Hamas,” remarked the official lately. “That’s will require a while.” Trump further emphasized the lack of clarity, declaring in an conversation on Sunday that there is no “hard” deadline for the group to lay down arms. So, theoretically, the unknown members of this still unformed global contingent could arrive in the territory while the organization's members continue to remain in control. Are they dealing with a administration or a guerrilla movement? These represent only some of the questions arising. Others might wonder what the outcome will be for ordinary Palestinians under current conditions, with Hamas continuing to attack its own adversaries and critics.

Recent developments have yet again emphasized the blind spots of local media coverage on the two sides of the Gaza boundary. Every publication attempts to examine all conceivable angle of the group's infractions of the ceasefire. And, usually, the situation that Hamas has been delaying the repatriation of the remains of killed Israeli hostages has monopolized the coverage.

Conversely, reporting of non-combatant casualties in Gaza caused by Israeli operations has garnered scant attention – if at all. Take the Israeli retaliatory strikes after Sunday’s Rafah event, in which a pair of military personnel were lost. While Gaza’s officials stated 44 fatalities, Israeli media analysts criticised the “light response,” which hit only facilities.

That is typical. During the recent few days, Gaza’s information bureau charged Israel of breaking the ceasefire with Hamas multiple times since the ceasefire came into effect, killing 38 individuals and harming an additional many more. The claim appeared unimportant to most Israeli media outlets – it was simply ignored. This applied to reports that eleven individuals of a local family were killed by Israeli troops last Friday.

The emergency services said the family had been seeking to return to their residence in the Zeitoun neighbourhood of Gaza City when the bus they were in was targeted for supposedly crossing the “yellow line” that marks areas under Israeli army authority. That yellow line is invisible to the naked eye and appears only on charts and in government documents – often not accessible to ordinary people in the region.

Even that incident scarcely got a note in Israeli media. One source mentioned it briefly on its website, citing an Israeli military spokesperson who said that after a suspect car was spotted, troops fired alerting fire towards it, “but the vehicle persisted to approach the forces in a fashion that created an direct danger to them. The troops shot to neutralize the risk, in compliance with the ceasefire.” Zero casualties were stated.

Amid this perspective, it is no surprise many Israeli citizens think the group solely is to blame for violating the truce. That perception risks fuelling demands for a stronger stance in the region.

At some point – maybe sooner than expected – it will not be sufficient for American representatives to act as kindergarten teachers, telling the Israeli government what not to do. They will {have to|need