🔗 Share this article

These days showcase a quite unusual occurrence: the inaugural US procession of the babysitters. They vary in their expertise and traits, but they all possess the identical mission – to avert an Israeli violation, or even devastation, of Gaza’s fragile truce. Since the conflict finished, there have been few occasions without at least one of Donald Trump’s representatives on the territory. Just this past week featured the presence of a senior advisor, Steve Witkoff, a senator and a political figure – all arriving to execute their assignments.

Israel keeps them busy. In only a few short period it launched a set of operations in Gaza after the deaths of a pair of Israeli military troops – leading, as reported, in scores of local fatalities. A number of officials urged a renewal of the fighting, and the Israeli parliament enacted a preliminary resolution to incorporate the occupied territories. The American response was somewhere ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

But in more than one sense, the Trump administration seems more intent on preserving the present, uneasy stage of the peace than on progressing to the next: the rehabilitation of Gaza. Concerning this, it appears the United States may have ambitions but no tangible strategies.

For now, it remains uncertain at what point the planned international administrative entity will actually take power, and the same goes for the appointed security force – or even the composition of its members. On Tuesday, Vance said the US would not force the membership of the international contingent on Israel. But if the prime minister's administration persists to reject various proposals – as it did with the Turkish suggestion recently – what follows? There is also the contrary issue: who will decide whether the forces supported by Israel are even interested in the assignment?

The issue of how long it will take to demilitarize the militant group is equally vague. “Our hope in the leadership is that the global peacekeeping unit is will at this point assume responsibility in disarming Hamas,” said the official recently. “That’s going to take a while.” Trump further reinforced the ambiguity, saying in an interview on Sunday that there is no “rigid” schedule for the group to disarm. So, in theory, the unidentified elements of this still unformed international contingent could arrive in Gaza while the organization's militants still hold power. Are they facing a administration or a insurgent group? These represent only some of the issues surfacing. Others might question what the result will be for everyday Palestinians as things stand, with the group continuing to target its own opponents and critics.

Latest incidents have yet again highlighted the blind spots of local reporting on both sides of the Gaza boundary. Every outlet attempts to examine each potential aspect of the group's violations of the truce. And, in general, the situation that the organization has been delaying the return of the remains of killed Israeli hostages has monopolized the coverage.

On the other hand, attention of non-combatant casualties in Gaza caused by Israeli operations has obtained minimal attention – if at all. Take the Israeli response actions following a recent southern Gaza event, in which two soldiers were killed. While local authorities stated 44 casualties, Israeli television pundits complained about the “light answer,” which focused on just installations.

That is nothing new. Over the previous weekend, Gaza’s media office charged Israeli forces of violating the ceasefire with Hamas multiple times after the ceasefire was implemented, killing dozens of individuals and injuring another many more. The allegation appeared insignificant to the majority of Israeli media outlets – it was merely ignored. This applied to accounts that eleven members of a Palestinian family were lost their lives by Israeli forces recently.

The emergency services said the individuals had been attempting to go back to their home in the a Gaza City district of the city when the transport they were in was targeted for supposedly going over the “boundary” that demarcates territories under Israeli army authority. This boundary is invisible to the human eye and appears only on plans and in authoritative papers – sometimes not obtainable to ordinary residents in the area.

Yet this incident scarcely got a mention in Israeli journalism. Channel 13 News covered it briefly on its digital site, quoting an Israeli military spokesperson who stated that after a suspicious car was detected, soldiers shot warning shots towards it, “but the transport continued to advance on the forces in a manner that caused an imminent risk to them. The soldiers engaged to remove the risk, in accordance with the ceasefire.” No fatalities were reported.

Given such framing, it is little wonder a lot of Israelis feel Hamas alone is to blame for infringing the truce. That view could lead to prompting demands for a tougher stance in the region.

Eventually – possibly in the near future – it will not be adequate for US envoys to act as kindergarten teachers, advising the Israeli government what to avoid. They will {have to|need