🔗 Share this article

These times exhibit a quite unique situation: the inaugural US march of the babysitters. They vary in their expertise and characteristics, but they all share the identical goal – to prevent an Israeli infringement, or even demolition, of the fragile peace agreement. Since the war finished, there have been rare occasions without at least one of the former president's envoys on the ground. Only this past week included the presence of a senior advisor, Steve Witkoff, JD Vance and Marco Rubio – all arriving to carry out their duties.

The Israeli government keeps them busy. In only a few short period it launched a wave of strikes in Gaza after the deaths of a pair of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers – leading, based on accounts, in dozens of Palestinian injuries. Several ministers called for a resumption of the fighting, and the Knesset passed a preliminary resolution to take over the West Bank. The US response was somewhere ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

However in several ways, the US leadership appears more intent on preserving the present, uneasy phase of the ceasefire than on advancing to the next: the rebuilding of Gaza. Concerning that, it seems the United States may have goals but no specific plans.

At present, it remains unknown at what point the proposed global governing body will truly take power, and the same applies to the designated military contingent – or even the makeup of its soldiers. On Tuesday, a US official declared the US would not dictate the composition of the international force on the Israeli government. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration continues to reject one alternative after another – as it did with the Ankara's suggestion this week – what occurs next? There is also the reverse question: who will determine whether the forces favoured by the Israelis are even willing in the mission?

The matter of how long it will take to neutralize Hamas is just as ambiguous. “The expectation in the administration is that the multinational troops is will at this point assume responsibility in demilitarizing Hamas,” remarked the official recently. “It’s may need some time.” The former president further highlighted the ambiguity, stating in an interview recently that there is no “fixed” deadline for Hamas to disarm. So, hypothetically, the unnamed members of this still unformed global force could deploy to Gaza while the organization's militants continue to wield influence. Are they facing a governing body or a guerrilla movement? Among the many of the issues arising. Some might ask what the result will be for average residents under current conditions, with Hamas carrying on to target its own opponents and critics.

Current events have once again underscored the gaps of local journalism on each side of the Gazan frontier. Each source seeks to scrutinize all conceivable perspective of the group's breaches of the peace. And, typically, the reality that the organization has been hindering the repatriation of the remains of deceased Israeli hostages has dominated the headlines.

By contrast, attention of civilian fatalities in the region stemming from Israeli operations has received minimal notice – or none. Take the Israeli response actions in the wake of a recent Rafah event, in which two troops were fatally wounded. While Gaza’s sources claimed dozens of fatalities, Israeli news pundits complained about the “light reaction,” which hit only infrastructure.

That is nothing new. Over the past weekend, the information bureau alleged Israel of infringing the truce with Hamas multiple times after the ceasefire was implemented, resulting in the loss of 38 individuals and wounding another 143. The allegation appeared unimportant to the majority of Israeli media outlets – it was simply ignored. That included reports that eleven individuals of a local household were lost their lives by Israeli forces a few days ago.

Gaza’s rescue organization said the individuals had been attempting to go back to their residence in the Zeitoun area of Gaza City when the bus they were in was fired upon for supposedly passing the “boundary” that demarcates areas under Israeli military control. This boundary is invisible to the ordinary view and shows up solely on plans and in government papers – often not accessible to ordinary individuals in the area.

Even this occurrence barely got a mention in Israeli journalism. A major outlet covered it in passing on its website, quoting an IDF official who said that after a suspect car was spotted, soldiers discharged alerting fire towards it, “but the transport continued to advance on the troops in a manner that created an immediate danger to them. The troops engaged to eliminate the danger, in compliance with the agreement.” Zero fatalities were claimed.

Given this framing, it is no surprise many Israeli citizens believe Hamas alone is to responsible for violating the truce. This perception threatens prompting appeals for a stronger strategy in the region.

At some point – possibly sooner rather than later – it will not be enough for American representatives to act as caretakers, instructing Israel what to avoid. They will {have to|need