🔗 Share this article

These days present a quite distinctive situation: the first-ever US procession of the caretakers. Their attributes range in their qualifications and traits, but they all share the same goal – to avert an Israeli violation, or even demolition, of Gaza’s fragile ceasefire. Since the hostilities ended, there have been few days without at least one of Donald Trump’s envoys on the territory. Just recently included the presence of a senior advisor, Steve Witkoff, a senator and a political figure – all coming to execute their roles.

Israel keeps them busy. In only a few days it initiated a wave of operations in Gaza after the deaths of two Israeli military soldiers – leading, according to reports, in many of local fatalities. Several leaders called for a restart of the war, and the Israeli parliament enacted a preliminary measure to annex the occupied territories. The American stance was somewhere ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

But in various respects, the Trump administration seems more concentrated on maintaining the existing, unstable stage of the truce than on progressing to the next: the rehabilitation of the Gaza Strip. When it comes to this, it appears the US may have ambitions but no concrete plans.

Currently, it remains uncertain at what point the suggested global governing body will truly take power, and the same goes for the proposed military contingent – or even the identity of its personnel. On Tuesday, Vance said the United States would not impose the membership of the foreign unit on Israel. But if the prime minister's government keeps to dismiss one alternative after another – as it did with the Turkish suggestion lately – what follows? There is also the reverse issue: who will determine whether the units preferred by Israel are even interested in the task?

The question of the timeframe it will need to demilitarize the militant group is similarly unclear. “Our hope in the government is that the global peacekeeping unit is intends to now take charge in demilitarizing the organization,” said Vance recently. “It’s going to take a period.” The former president further emphasized the ambiguity, stating in an interview a few days ago that there is no “hard” schedule for Hamas to disarm. So, hypothetically, the unnamed participants of this still unformed global contingent could arrive in the territory while the organization's fighters continue to hold power. Are they confronting a leadership or a guerrilla movement? These represent only some of the questions surfacing. Others might wonder what the verdict will be for average civilians in the present situation, with Hamas persisting to focus on its own adversaries and critics.

Current developments have yet again underscored the omissions of Israeli media coverage on both sides of the Gaza boundary. Every outlet strives to scrutinize each potential perspective of the group's breaches of the peace. And, typically, the situation that Hamas has been delaying the return of the remains of slain Israeli hostages has taken over the headlines.

By contrast, coverage of non-combatant deaths in the region resulting from Israeli strikes has received scant attention – if at all. Take the Israeli counter strikes following Sunday’s southern Gaza event, in which two soldiers were fatally wounded. While Gaza’s officials claimed 44 fatalities, Israeli media pundits complained about the “limited reaction,” which targeted solely facilities.

That is nothing new. Over the previous few days, Gaza’s press agency accused Israeli forces of infringing the peace with Hamas 47 times since the ceasefire was implemented, resulting in the loss of dozens of Palestinians and wounding another 143. The claim appeared irrelevant to most Israeli reporting – it was just missing. That included information that eleven members of a local family were lost their lives by Israeli troops a few days ago.

Gaza’s rescue organization said the individuals had been attempting to go back to their dwelling in the Zeitoun district of the city when the vehicle they were in was attacked for allegedly crossing the “yellow line” that marks areas under Israeli military authority. That yellow line is unseen to the naked eye and appears solely on charts and in government documents – not always obtainable to ordinary individuals in the territory.

Even this event scarcely got a mention in Israeli journalism. One source referred to it briefly on its digital site, referencing an Israeli military representative who explained that after a questionable transport was spotted, forces shot alerting fire towards it, “but the vehicle persisted to move toward the troops in a manner that created an imminent danger to them. The forces engaged to neutralize the threat, in accordance with the agreement.” Zero fatalities were reported.

With this framing, it is little wonder a lot of Israeli citizens believe Hamas alone is to responsible for infringing the truce. This perception could lead to fuelling demands for a more aggressive strategy in the region.

Eventually – maybe in the near future – it will not be sufficient for US envoys to play supervisors, advising the Israeli government what not to do. They will {have to|need