🔗 Share this article

Thhese days present a very unusual occurrence: the inaugural US march of the overseers. Their attributes range in their qualifications and traits, but they all possess the identical mission – to stop an Israeli violation, or even demolition, of Gaza’s delicate peace agreement. Since the conflict ended, there have been few days without at least one of the former president's delegates on the ground. Only in the last few days included the likes of a senior advisor, a businessman, a senator and Marco Rubio – all coming to perform their assignments.

Israel occupies their time. In just a few short period it executed a series of attacks in the region after the killings of a pair of Israeli military personnel – leading, based on accounts, in dozens of Palestinian injuries. Several leaders urged a resumption of the fighting, and the Knesset enacted a initial measure to annex the occupied territories. The American reaction was somewhere ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

But in more than one sense, the Trump administration seems more intent on maintaining the present, unstable phase of the ceasefire than on progressing to the next: the rebuilding of the Gaza Strip. Concerning that, it seems the US may have aspirations but few specific strategies.

At present, it remains unclear when the suggested international oversight committee will truly take power, and the same goes for the designated security force – or even the makeup of its members. On Tuesday, a US official said the US would not dictate the membership of the international unit on the Israeli government. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s government keeps to refuse one alternative after another – as it acted with the Turkish offer this week – what occurs next? There is also the opposite point: which party will decide whether the forces favoured by Israel are even interested in the mission?

The matter of how long it will need to demilitarize the militant group is similarly vague. “Our hope in the government is that the international security force is will at this point take the lead in disarming the organization,” said the official lately. “That’s going to take some time.” Trump further emphasized the lack of clarity, declaring in an conversation on Sunday that there is no “rigid” timeline for Hamas to disarm. So, theoretically, the unidentified members of this not yet established international contingent could enter the territory while Hamas fighters still hold power. Are they confronting a governing body or a militant faction? These are just a few of the questions arising. Some might wonder what the verdict will be for average civilians under current conditions, with Hamas continuing to target its own opponents and opposition.

Latest incidents have once again highlighted the gaps of Israeli media coverage on each side of the Gaza border. Each source strives to scrutinize all conceivable perspective of Hamas’s infractions of the ceasefire. And, typically, the fact that the organization has been delaying the repatriation of the bodies of slain Israeli hostages has dominated the headlines.

By contrast, reporting of civilian casualties in Gaza resulting from Israeli operations has obtained scant attention – if at all. Consider the Israeli counter strikes in the wake of a recent Rafah incident, in which two military personnel were fatally wounded. While local officials reported 44 fatalities, Israeli news pundits questioned the “light reaction,” which targeted solely installations.

That is not new. During the past few days, the press agency accused Israeli forces of breaking the peace with the group multiple times since the ceasefire came into effect, causing the death of dozens of Palestinians and wounding another 143. The allegation seemed insignificant to the majority of Israeli reporting – it was just absent. That included accounts that 11 members of a local family were fatally shot by Israeli forces recently.

Gaza’s emergency services stated the group had been seeking to go back to their dwelling in the a Gaza City neighbourhood of the city when the bus they were in was attacked for reportedly passing the “yellow line” that demarcates territories under Israeli army command. That boundary is not visible to the naked eye and is visible only on maps and in authoritative documents – not always accessible to ordinary people in the region.

Yet that occurrence hardly received a mention in Israeli news outlets. Channel 13 News mentioned it briefly on its website, citing an IDF spokesperson who explained that after a suspicious vehicle was spotted, troops shot warning shots towards it, “but the vehicle persisted to move toward the forces in a fashion that caused an direct threat to them. The forces opened fire to eliminate the risk, in line with the ceasefire.” Zero fatalities were claimed.

Amid such narrative, it is understandable many Israeli citizens feel the group solely is to blame for infringing the truce. That view risks fuelling calls for a tougher stance in the region.

Sooner or later – possibly sooner than expected – it will not be sufficient for US envoys to play supervisors, advising Israel what to avoid. They will {have to|need