🔗 Share this article

Thhese days showcase a quite distinctive occurrence: the first-ever US parade of the caretakers. They vary in their skills and traits, but they all have the same objective – to prevent an Israeli violation, or even demolition, of Gaza’s delicate truce. Since the war finished, there have been few occasions without at least one of Donald Trump’s delegates on the ground. Just recently featured the arrival of a senior advisor, a businessman, JD Vance and a political figure – all arriving to perform their assignments.

Israel occupies their time. In only a few days it initiated a series of operations in Gaza after the deaths of two Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers – resulting, based on accounts, in dozens of local fatalities. Several officials called for a restart of the conflict, and the Israeli parliament passed a early resolution to incorporate the West Bank. The US response was somehow ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

However in various respects, the US leadership appears more focused on preserving the present, unstable stage of the ceasefire than on moving to the next: the reconstruction of Gaza. Regarding this, it looks the US may have goals but little specific plans.

For now, it remains unclear at what point the suggested international governing body will effectively begin operating, and the same goes for the appointed military contingent – or even the identity of its members. On a recent day, Vance declared the United States would not impose the structure of the international contingent on Israel. But if the prime minister's administration persists to refuse one alternative after another – as it acted with the Ankara's offer this week – what follows? There is also the reverse point: who will decide whether the units favoured by Israel are even willing in the task?

The issue of how long it will take to disarm the militant group is just as vague. “Our hope in the government is that the multinational troops is will now assume responsibility in disarming Hamas,” said Vance lately. “It’s will require a while.” Trump further reinforced the lack of clarity, declaring in an discussion on Sunday that there is no “hard” timeline for the group to disarm. So, hypothetically, the unidentified participants of this still unformed global contingent could arrive in the territory while the organization's members still wield influence. Are they dealing with a leadership or a militant faction? These are just a few of the concerns surfacing. Others might question what the outcome will be for average civilians under current conditions, with Hamas carrying on to attack its own political rivals and critics.

Latest developments have yet again highlighted the blind spots of local journalism on both sides of the Gaza boundary. Every outlet seeks to analyze every possible angle of Hamas’s infractions of the truce. And, in general, the reality that Hamas has been delaying the return of the remains of deceased Israeli hostages has monopolized the coverage.

On the other hand, attention of civilian casualties in Gaza caused by Israeli strikes has garnered minimal focus – or none. Take the Israeli response strikes after a recent Rafah occurrence, in which two soldiers were lost. While Gaza’s officials reported 44 deaths, Israeli television commentators questioned the “moderate reaction,” which targeted solely infrastructure.

This is typical. During the recent weekend, Gaza’s information bureau charged Israeli forces of infringing the ceasefire with Hamas multiple occasions since the truce came into effect, resulting in the loss of dozens of Palestinians and harming another 143. The claim appeared irrelevant to most Israeli news programmes – it was simply ignored. That included accounts that 11 individuals of a local household were lost their lives by Israeli troops last Friday.

Gaza’s rescue organization stated the family had been attempting to go back to their residence in the Zeitoun neighbourhood of the city when the transport they were in was attacked for supposedly crossing the “boundary” that defines territories under Israeli army authority. That boundary is unseen to the naked eye and appears only on maps and in authoritative records – often not obtainable to everyday people in the region.

Yet that event hardly rated a reference in Israeli journalism. One source covered it in passing on its online platform, citing an Israeli military spokesperson who stated that after a questionable car was spotted, troops fired cautionary rounds towards it, “but the vehicle kept to move toward the troops in a manner that caused an immediate threat to them. The forces opened fire to neutralize the risk, in compliance with the truce.” Zero injuries were claimed.

With such narrative, it is understandable many Israeli citizens believe Hamas exclusively is to responsible for infringing the truce. This view risks prompting appeals for a more aggressive stance in the region.

At some point – perhaps sooner than expected – it will not be enough for US envoys to act as caretakers, telling the Israeli government what to avoid. They will {have to|need