🔗 Share this article

These times exhibit a very unique phenomenon: the pioneering US parade of the overseers. Their qualifications differ in their qualifications and traits, but they all have the common goal – to stop an Israeli breach, or even devastation, of Gaza’s unstable ceasefire. Since the conflict finished, there have been scant days without at least one of Donald Trump’s envoys on the territory. Just in the last few days saw the presence of Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, JD Vance and a political figure – all coming to perform their roles.

The Israeli government keeps them busy. In just a few days it executed a series of strikes in Gaza after the killings of a pair of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers – resulting, based on accounts, in dozens of Palestinian casualties. Multiple officials urged a renewal of the war, and the Israeli parliament passed a preliminary decision to take over the occupied territories. The American reaction was somewhere between “no” and “hell no.”

Yet in several ways, the Trump administration seems more intent on preserving the present, unstable period of the truce than on progressing to the subsequent: the rebuilding of the Gaza Strip. When it comes to this, it seems the United States may have goals but no tangible strategies.

For now, it remains unknown at what point the suggested international oversight committee will actually assume control, and the same applies to the appointed security force – or even the composition of its members. On Tuesday, Vance stated the US would not impose the composition of the international unit on the Israeli government. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s government persists to refuse multiple options – as it acted with the Ankara's suggestion this week – what occurs next? There is also the reverse issue: which party will determine whether the units preferred by Israel are even willing in the assignment?

The issue of the timeframe it will need to neutralize the militant group is just as unclear. “The aim in the leadership is that the global peacekeeping unit is intends to now take charge in disarming Hamas,” stated the official lately. “It’s will require some time.” Trump further reinforced the lack of clarity, stating in an discussion on Sunday that there is no “fixed” timeline for Hamas to disarm. So, theoretically, the unidentified participants of this still unformed international force could enter the territory while the organization's fighters continue to remain in control. Would they be facing a leadership or a guerrilla movement? These represent only some of the issues arising. Some might ask what the verdict will be for everyday civilians as things stand, with the group continuing to focus on its own political rivals and critics.

Latest events have yet again underscored the blind spots of local media coverage on the two sides of the Gaza border. Every publication attempts to analyze all conceivable angle of the group's breaches of the peace. And, in general, the fact that Hamas has been stalling the return of the bodies of slain Israeli hostages has monopolized the coverage.

On the other hand, coverage of non-combatant casualties in Gaza stemming from Israeli strikes has garnered scant attention – if at all. Consider the Israeli counter attacks in the wake of a recent southern Gaza event, in which a pair of military personnel were fatally wounded. While local authorities claimed dozens of casualties, Israeli news analysts criticised the “light reaction,” which targeted only infrastructure.

That is not new. Over the past weekend, Gaza’s media office charged Israeli forces of breaking the peace with Hamas 47 occasions since the truce began, resulting in the loss of 38 Palestinians and harming another many more. The allegation was irrelevant to most Israeli news programmes – it was merely missing. This applied to accounts that 11 individuals of a Palestinian household were killed by Israeli soldiers a few days ago.

Gaza’s rescue organization said the individuals had been attempting to go back to their home in the a Gaza City neighbourhood of the city when the transport they were in was targeted for reportedly going over the “yellow line” that defines zones under Israeli army command. That boundary is not visible to the naked eye and appears only on charts and in government documents – sometimes not obtainable to average individuals in the region.

Even this occurrence hardly rated a note in Israeli media. A major outlet covered it in passing on its digital site, quoting an IDF spokesperson who explained that after a suspect vehicle was identified, troops fired cautionary rounds towards it, “but the transport continued to approach the soldiers in a manner that created an immediate risk to them. The troops shot to neutralize the threat, in line with the ceasefire.” Zero fatalities were stated.

Given such narrative, it is no surprise many Israeli citizens think the group alone is to blame for infringing the ceasefire. That view risks fuelling demands for a more aggressive approach in the region.

At some point – perhaps sooner than expected – it will no longer be adequate for American representatives to play kindergarten teachers, advising Israel what to avoid. They will {have to|need