🔗 Share this article

These days showcase a quite distinctive situation: the inaugural US procession of the caretakers. They vary in their skills and characteristics, but they all have the common mission – to stop an Israeli infringement, or even demolition, of Gaza’s delicate truce. Since the hostilities concluded, there have been scant occasions without at least one of the former president's envoys on the territory. Just this past week featured the likes of a senior advisor, Steve Witkoff, a senator and Marco Rubio – all arriving to execute their assignments.

The Israeli government occupies their time. In just a few short period it executed a set of strikes in Gaza after the loss of a pair of Israeli military personnel – resulting, based on accounts, in many of Palestinian casualties. Several ministers called for a restart of the fighting, and the Knesset passed a preliminary decision to annex the occupied territories. The American response was somewhere between “no” and “hell no.”

However in several ways, the American government seems more intent on maintaining the current, tense stage of the peace than on advancing to the subsequent: the reconstruction of Gaza. When it comes to that, it looks the US may have aspirations but little concrete strategies.

For now, it remains unknown at what point the proposed international administrative entity will truly begin operating, and the same is true for the proposed military contingent – or even the makeup of its soldiers. On a recent day, a US official stated the United States would not impose the composition of the international unit on Israel. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet keeps to reject multiple options – as it acted with the Turkish proposal recently – what occurs next? There is also the opposite issue: who will decide whether the forces preferred by the Israelis are even willing in the task?

The issue of the timeframe it will take to disarm the militant group is equally vague. “Our hope in the administration is that the international security force is going to now assume responsibility in disarming the organization,” said the official recently. “It’s going to take a while.” The former president further highlighted the uncertainty, declaring in an discussion a few days ago that there is no “fixed” timeline for Hamas to disarm. So, in theory, the unnamed members of this still unformed global contingent could arrive in Gaza while the organization's fighters continue to wield influence. Would they be confronting a leadership or a militant faction? These represent only some of the concerns surfacing. Others might ask what the verdict will be for everyday Palestinians as things stand, with the group carrying on to focus on its own adversaries and dissidents.

Current events have once again highlighted the blind spots of local reporting on the two sides of the Gazan border. Each publication attempts to scrutinize each potential aspect of Hamas’s infractions of the peace. And, usually, the reality that Hamas has been stalling the return of the bodies of killed Israeli captives has dominated the news.

Conversely, reporting of non-combatant deaths in the region stemming from Israeli operations has garnered minimal attention – if any. Take the Israeli counter attacks following a recent southern Gaza incident, in which a pair of troops were killed. While local authorities reported dozens of fatalities, Israeli television commentators questioned the “moderate reaction,” which targeted only facilities.

That is typical. During the past weekend, Gaza’s press agency alleged Israeli forces of infringing the truce with Hamas multiple occasions since the agreement was implemented, killing dozens of individuals and harming another 143. The claim seemed unimportant to the majority of Israeli news programmes – it was just ignored. That included reports that 11 members of a local household were lost their lives by Israeli troops last Friday.

Gaza’s civil defence agency stated the family had been attempting to return to their home in the a Gaza City area of Gaza City when the vehicle they were in was targeted for reportedly passing the “demarcation line” that defines zones under Israeli army command. This limit is invisible to the naked eye and is visible solely on plans and in authoritative records – often not accessible to average residents in the region.

Even this incident hardly received a reference in Israeli news outlets. One source referred to it in passing on its online platform, citing an IDF spokesperson who stated that after a suspect car was detected, forces discharged warning shots towards it, “but the transport persisted to approach the forces in a way that caused an immediate risk to them. The troops shot to neutralize the risk, in compliance with the ceasefire.” No casualties were stated.

With this narrative, it is little wonder many Israeli citizens feel the group exclusively is to blame for infringing the peace. This perception threatens encouraging demands for a tougher approach in the region.

Eventually – maybe sooner rather than later – it will not be sufficient for American representatives to take on the role of caretakers, advising the Israeli government what to avoid. They will {have to|need