🔗 Share this article

These days present a very distinctive occurrence: the first-ever US march of the overseers. They vary in their skills and attributes, but they all possess the common goal – to avert an Israeli breach, or even destruction, of Gaza’s delicate peace agreement. After the war ended, there have been scant occasions without at least one of the former president's representatives on the scene. Just this past week included the likes of a senior advisor, Steve Witkoff, JD Vance and Marco Rubio – all coming to carry out their duties.

Israel keeps them busy. In only a few days it executed a wave of attacks in Gaza after the loss of two Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers – resulting, as reported, in scores of Palestinian fatalities. Several ministers called for a restart of the conflict, and the Knesset passed a preliminary resolution to take over the occupied territories. The US stance was somewhere between “no” and “hell no.”

However in several ways, the Trump administration seems more intent on maintaining the current, unstable phase of the peace than on advancing to the subsequent: the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. When it comes to that, it appears the United States may have goals but little specific plans.

At present, it remains unknown at what point the planned multinational oversight committee will effectively assume control, and the same goes for the designated military contingent – or even the composition of its soldiers. On Tuesday, a US official stated the United States would not force the structure of the foreign force on the Israeli government. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration persists to reject various proposals – as it did with the Turkish suggestion lately – what happens then? There is also the contrary point: who will establish whether the forces supported by the Israelis are even interested in the mission?

The issue of the duration it will take to neutralize Hamas is similarly vague. “The aim in the administration is that the multinational troops is going to now take the lead in demilitarizing Hamas,” remarked Vance lately. “That’s will require a while.” The former president only reinforced the ambiguity, stating in an discussion a few days ago that there is no “rigid” schedule for the group to demilitarize. So, theoretically, the unnamed elements of this still unformed international contingent could enter the territory while the organization's militants still remain in control. Would they be facing a governing body or a militant faction? These are just a few of the questions surfacing. Some might question what the result will be for ordinary Palestinians as things stand, with Hamas continuing to focus on its own political rivals and critics.

Recent incidents have once again highlighted the omissions of local reporting on both sides of the Gaza boundary. Each outlet seeks to examine every possible angle of the group's violations of the ceasefire. And, usually, the situation that Hamas has been hindering the return of the remains of deceased Israeli captives has monopolized the coverage.

On the other hand, coverage of non-combatant fatalities in Gaza caused by Israeli operations has garnered minimal focus – if any. Consider the Israeli retaliatory attacks after a recent southern Gaza event, in which two troops were killed. While local officials stated 44 fatalities, Israeli television analysts criticised the “limited answer,” which hit only facilities.

That is typical. Over the past weekend, Gaza’s press agency charged Israeli forces of infringing the truce with Hamas 47 occasions after the agreement was implemented, resulting in the loss of 38 Palestinians and harming an additional 143. The allegation was irrelevant to most Israeli media outlets – it was merely ignored. That included information that eleven individuals of a local household were fatally shot by Israeli forces recently.

Gaza’s rescue organization said the individuals had been trying to return to their residence in the a Gaza City district of Gaza City when the vehicle they were in was targeted for supposedly crossing the “boundary” that demarcates territories under Israeli military authority. This boundary is unseen to the ordinary view and shows up solely on charts and in official papers – not always accessible to ordinary residents in the region.

Even that incident hardly got a mention in Israeli journalism. Channel 13 News covered it in passing on its website, citing an IDF official who explained that after a suspect vehicle was identified, soldiers shot alerting fire towards it, “but the car persisted to move toward the soldiers in a fashion that caused an direct threat to them. The forces opened fire to remove the danger, in line with the ceasefire.” No casualties were claimed.

With such framing, it is understandable a lot of Israeli citizens think the group solely is to blame for violating the ceasefire. That perception threatens encouraging appeals for a more aggressive stance in the region.

Sooner or later – possibly sooner rather than later – it will not be enough for all the president’s men to act as kindergarten teachers, advising the Israeli government what not to do. They will {have to|need