🔗 Share this article

Thhese times exhibit a quite unusual situation: the inaugural US parade of the overseers. They vary in their expertise and traits, but they all share the identical mission – to prevent an Israeli infringement, or even demolition, of the fragile peace agreement. After the hostilities finished, there have been few days without at least one of the former president's delegates on the ground. Only recently included the arrival of a senior advisor, a businessman, a senator and a political figure – all arriving to perform their duties.

Israel keeps them busy. In only a few short period it executed a wave of attacks in the region after the deaths of a pair of Israeli military soldiers – leading, according to reports, in scores of Palestinian injuries. Multiple leaders called for a resumption of the war, and the Israeli parliament passed a preliminary resolution to take over the West Bank. The American stance was somewhere ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

However in various respects, the US leadership seems more intent on maintaining the existing, tense phase of the truce than on progressing to the next: the rebuilding of Gaza. Regarding this, it looks the US may have goals but little specific plans.

At present, it is uncertain when the suggested international administrative entity will effectively begin operating, and the similar goes for the designated security force – or even the composition of its soldiers. On Tuesday, Vance said the United States would not impose the membership of the international contingent on the Israeli government. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s government persists to reject multiple options – as it acted with the Ankara's offer lately – what happens then? There is also the contrary point: who will decide whether the units favoured by Israel are even prepared in the mission?

The matter of the timeframe it will take to disarm the militant group is just as vague. “The expectation in the administration is that the international security force is going to now take charge in demilitarizing the organization,” stated Vance this week. “That’s may need a period.” Trump only emphasized the ambiguity, declaring in an interview recently that there is no “hard” schedule for Hamas to demilitarize. So, in theory, the unidentified participants of this yet-to-be-formed international contingent could deploy to Gaza while the organization's fighters continue to remain in control. Would they be facing a leadership or a militant faction? These are just a few of the questions arising. Others might question what the result will be for average residents as things stand, with the group persisting to target its own opponents and dissidents.

Latest developments have once again highlighted the gaps of Israeli media coverage on each side of the Gaza frontier. Each source seeks to analyze each potential perspective of the group's breaches of the peace. And, in general, the situation that the organization has been stalling the return of the bodies of deceased Israeli captives has dominated the headlines.

On the other hand, coverage of civilian casualties in the region caused by Israeli strikes has garnered minimal focus – or none. Consider the Israeli counter strikes in the wake of Sunday’s Rafah event, in which two troops were fatally wounded. While local authorities stated 44 casualties, Israeli television pundits complained about the “limited answer,” which focused on just facilities.

This is typical. During the recent weekend, the press agency accused Israel of violating the truce with Hamas multiple occasions since the truce was implemented, killing 38 Palestinians and wounding another 143. The assertion appeared insignificant to the majority of Israeli news programmes – it was simply ignored. That included reports that eleven members of a local family were killed by Israeli soldiers a few days ago.

The civil defence agency stated the family had been attempting to go back to their home in the Zeitoun area of the city when the transport they were in was fired upon for supposedly going over the “demarcation line” that demarcates areas under Israeli army command. That boundary is not visible to the ordinary view and is visible just on maps and in official records – often not obtainable to ordinary residents in the region.

Yet that event barely got a reference in Israeli news outlets. Channel 13 News referred to it shortly on its online platform, citing an Israeli military representative who explained that after a questionable vehicle was identified, troops discharged alerting fire towards it, “but the transport kept to advance on the troops in a way that created an imminent danger to them. The soldiers opened fire to neutralize the threat, in compliance with the agreement.” Zero casualties were reported.

With this perspective, it is little wonder numerous Israeli citizens think the group solely is to at fault for infringing the peace. That belief threatens fuelling appeals for a stronger approach in the region.

At some point – possibly in the near future – it will no longer be enough for American representatives to take on the role of kindergarten teachers, advising the Israeli government what not to do. They will {have to|need