🔗 Share this article

These times showcase a very unique situation: the first-ever US parade of the overseers. Their qualifications differ in their expertise and traits, but they all have the common mission – to stop an Israeli violation, or even devastation, of Gaza’s unstable peace agreement. After the hostilities ended, there have been scant occasions without at least one of the former president's envoys on the territory. Just in the last few days included the arrival of Jared Kushner, a businessman, a senator and a political figure – all appearing to carry out their roles.

Israel engages them fully. In just a few short period it initiated a wave of strikes in Gaza after the loss of a pair of Israeli military soldiers – leading, based on accounts, in scores of Palestinian casualties. A number of ministers demanded a restart of the war, and the Israeli parliament approved a preliminary resolution to annex the occupied territories. The US stance was somewhere between “no” and “hell no.”

However in various respects, the Trump administration appears more intent on upholding the existing, tense phase of the truce than on moving to the next: the rehabilitation of Gaza. Concerning that, it looks the US may have goals but little concrete strategies.

At present, it is unclear when the suggested multinational governing body will effectively take power, and the similar is true for the proposed military contingent – or even the composition of its soldiers. On a recent day, Vance stated the US would not dictate the structure of the international force on Israel. But if the prime minister's administration keeps to reject one alternative after another – as it acted with the Turkish suggestion this week – what happens then? There is also the reverse point: who will decide whether the units favoured by the Israelis are even willing in the assignment?

The issue of the duration it will require to disarm the militant group is equally unclear. “The aim in the administration is that the multinational troops is going to now take charge in disarming the organization,” remarked Vance recently. “That’s may need some time.” Trump only emphasized the ambiguity, saying in an discussion a few days ago that there is no “hard” timeline for the group to demilitarize. So, theoretically, the unnamed members of this yet-to-be-formed global contingent could deploy to Gaza while Hamas members continue to hold power. Are they dealing with a governing body or a guerrilla movement? These are just a few of the questions arising. Others might ask what the verdict will be for average civilians under current conditions, with Hamas carrying on to focus on its own opponents and dissidents.

Latest events have afresh highlighted the omissions of Israeli journalism on the two sides of the Gaza border. Every publication strives to scrutinize each potential aspect of Hamas’s violations of the ceasefire. And, usually, the reality that the organization has been stalling the repatriation of the bodies of deceased Israeli captives has dominated the coverage.

By contrast, coverage of non-combatant fatalities in Gaza caused by Israeli strikes has received minimal focus – if at all. Consider the Israeli response strikes after Sunday’s Rafah incident, in which two troops were fatally wounded. While Gaza’s officials stated dozens of casualties, Israeli television pundits criticised the “moderate response,” which hit only infrastructure.

This is typical. During the past few days, the media office accused Israeli forces of violating the truce with the group 47 times since the agreement began, killing 38 Palestinians and harming an additional 143. The allegation appeared unimportant to most Israeli news programmes – it was merely ignored. Even reports that 11 members of a local family were fatally shot by Israeli forces recently.

Gaza’s rescue organization said the family had been trying to go back to their home in the a Gaza City area of Gaza City when the vehicle they were in was attacked for reportedly going over the “boundary” that defines zones under Israeli military control. This yellow line is not visible to the naked eye and shows up solely on charts and in official documents – often not obtainable to average people in the region.

Even this incident hardly received a reference in Israeli journalism. Channel 13 News referred to it shortly on its website, quoting an IDF official who explained that after a questionable car was spotted, forces shot alerting fire towards it, “but the car continued to advance on the troops in a way that created an imminent danger to them. The forces engaged to neutralize the threat, in compliance with the agreement.” No casualties were reported.

Given such perspective, it is no surprise a lot of Israeli citizens feel the group solely is to responsible for breaking the ceasefire. This view risks prompting appeals for a stronger approach in the region.

Sooner or later – maybe sooner rather than later – it will not be enough for US envoys to take on the role of caretakers, advising the Israeli government what not to do. They will {have to|need