🔗 Share this article

These times present a quite distinctive situation: the pioneering US parade of the caretakers. Their attributes range in their qualifications and attributes, but they all possess the same objective – to avert an Israeli violation, or even devastation, of the delicate ceasefire. After the war ended, there have been rare occasions without at least one of the former president's representatives on the ground. Just this past week featured the presence of a senior advisor, Steve Witkoff, JD Vance and Marco Rubio – all appearing to execute their roles.

The Israeli government occupies their time. In only a few short period it executed a set of strikes in the region after the killings of two Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers – leading, as reported, in dozens of local fatalities. A number of ministers urged a restart of the war, and the Knesset approved a preliminary decision to annex the West Bank. The US response was somewhere ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

But in several ways, the Trump administration seems more focused on preserving the existing, uneasy phase of the ceasefire than on progressing to the subsequent: the reconstruction of Gaza. Regarding that, it seems the United States may have aspirations but no specific plans.

Currently, it remains uncertain when the planned international administrative entity will truly take power, and the similar is true for the proposed peacekeeping troops – or even the identity of its soldiers. On Tuesday, a US official said the United States would not dictate the structure of the foreign force on the Israeli government. But if the prime minister's administration keeps to reject various proposals – as it did with the Ankara's proposal recently – what happens then? There is also the opposite point: who will establish whether the units supported by the Israelis are even interested in the mission?

The question of how long it will take to neutralize Hamas is just as unclear. “The expectation in the leadership is that the multinational troops is intends to now assume responsibility in demilitarizing the organization,” stated the official this week. “It’s going to take a while.” The former president only highlighted the uncertainty, declaring in an discussion recently that there is no “hard” deadline for the group to disarm. So, theoretically, the unknown participants of this still unformed global contingent could deploy to Gaza while the organization's fighters continue to hold power. Would they be facing a governing body or a guerrilla movement? These are just a few of the questions emerging. Some might question what the result will be for average residents as things stand, with the group persisting to focus on its own opponents and dissidents.

Latest developments have yet again underscored the gaps of Israeli journalism on the two sides of the Gazan boundary. Every outlet strives to analyze every possible perspective of the group's violations of the truce. And, in general, the fact that Hamas has been delaying the repatriation of the bodies of slain Israeli captives has monopolized the coverage.

By contrast, reporting of non-combatant fatalities in the region stemming from Israeli operations has received little focus – if at all. Take the Israeli response actions after a recent Rafah event, in which a pair of soldiers were killed. While Gaza’s officials stated dozens of fatalities, Israeli media analysts complained about the “limited reaction,” which hit just infrastructure.

This is typical. Over the previous weekend, Gaza’s press agency charged Israeli forces of breaking the truce with the group multiple occasions since the agreement was implemented, killing dozens of Palestinians and wounding another 143. The claim was unimportant to the majority of Israeli news programmes – it was just ignored. That included accounts that 11 individuals of a local family were lost their lives by Israeli troops a few days ago.

Gaza’s civil defence agency reported the family had been trying to return to their dwelling in the a Gaza City district of Gaza City when the vehicle they were in was attacked for reportedly going over the “yellow line” that demarcates areas under Israeli army control. This yellow line is invisible to the naked eye and shows up only on charts and in government documents – often not available to ordinary individuals in the area.

Even that occurrence hardly got a reference in Israeli journalism. A major outlet covered it briefly on its digital site, referencing an IDF representative who said that after a suspicious vehicle was spotted, soldiers shot warning shots towards it, “but the car continued to approach the troops in a way that caused an imminent risk to them. The forces opened fire to neutralize the threat, in line with the ceasefire.” Zero casualties were claimed.

Amid such narrative, it is no surprise numerous Israelis think the group solely is to blame for breaking the truce. That perception risks encouraging calls for a more aggressive approach in the region.

Sooner or later – perhaps sooner than expected – it will not be adequate for American representatives to act as supervisors, instructing the Israeli government what to avoid. They will {have to|need