🔗 Share this article

These days exhibit a quite distinctive phenomenon: the pioneering US procession of the overseers. Their qualifications differ in their qualifications and characteristics, but they all possess the common objective – to prevent an Israeli violation, or even demolition, of the fragile truce. After the conflict ended, there have been few occasions without at least one of the former president's envoys on the territory. Just recently included the arrival of a senior advisor, a businessman, JD Vance and Marco Rubio – all arriving to execute their assignments.

The Israeli government engages them fully. In only a few short period it executed a set of attacks in the region after the killings of two Israeli military troops – leading, according to reports, in scores of Palestinian fatalities. Several leaders demanded a renewal of the fighting, and the Israeli parliament passed a preliminary resolution to incorporate the West Bank. The American response was somewhere ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

However in more than one sense, the US leadership seems more focused on maintaining the existing, unstable stage of the ceasefire than on moving to the subsequent: the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. Regarding that, it looks the United States may have goals but few specific proposals.

At present, it is uncertain when the planned international governing body will effectively assume control, and the identical applies to the designated security force – or even the makeup of its personnel. 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 cabinet continues to dismiss various proposals – as it did with the Turkish proposal recently – what follows? There is also the opposite point: who will decide whether the forces preferred by Israel are even willing in the task?

The matter of how long it will take to demilitarize Hamas is equally vague. “The aim in the government is that the international security force is intends to now take charge in neutralizing Hamas,” said the official lately. “That’s may need a period.” The former president only emphasized the uncertainty, saying in an interview a few days ago that there is no “fixed” deadline for the group to lay down arms. So, theoretically, the unnamed participants of this still unformed international contingent could enter the territory while the organization's fighters still remain in control. Would they be facing a leadership or a guerrilla movement? Among the many of the concerns surfacing. Others might wonder what the result will be for average Palestinians under current conditions, with the group carrying on to attack its own adversaries and dissidents.

Latest incidents have yet again highlighted the gaps of local journalism on each side of the Gazan frontier. Each publication seeks to analyze every possible aspect of the group's violations of the peace. And, typically, the reality that Hamas has been stalling the return of the remains of killed Israeli hostages has dominated the headlines.

By contrast, attention of civilian fatalities in Gaza stemming from Israeli strikes has received little notice – if at all. Consider the Israeli retaliatory attacks in the wake of a recent southern Gaza occurrence, in which a pair of troops were fatally wounded. While Gaza’s sources claimed dozens of deaths, Israeli news commentators questioned the “limited answer,” which focused on only facilities.

This is typical. During the previous few days, the press agency charged Israeli forces of breaking the ceasefire with Hamas 47 times since the ceasefire came into effect, causing the death of dozens of individuals and harming another 143. The assertion was unimportant to most Israeli media outlets – it was simply missing. That included accounts that 11 individuals of a local family were killed by Israeli forces recently.

Gaza’s rescue organization stated the individuals had been trying to return to their dwelling in the a Gaza City district of Gaza City when the vehicle they were in was attacked for supposedly going over the “yellow line” that demarcates zones under Israeli military control. That yellow line is invisible to the naked eye and shows up solely on maps and in government documents – often not accessible to ordinary people in the region.

Even this occurrence barely received a reference in Israeli news outlets. Channel 13 News covered it in passing on its online platform, quoting an IDF spokesperson who said that after a questionable vehicle was detected, forces fired alerting fire towards it, “but the car kept to move toward the troops in a manner that created an direct threat to them. The troops opened fire to neutralize the danger, in line with the truce.” Zero injuries were claimed.

Given this narrative, it is no surprise numerous Israelis think Hamas solely is to at fault for breaking the truce. This view risks encouraging appeals for a tougher strategy in Gaza.

Sooner or later – possibly sooner rather than later – it will not be sufficient for American representatives to take on the role of supervisors, instructing Israel what not to do. They will {have to|need