🔗 Share this article

Thhese days present a quite unusual phenomenon: the inaugural US parade of the babysitters. They vary in their qualifications and traits, but they all have the identical mission – to prevent an Israeli violation, or even demolition, of the unstable truce. Since the war finished, there have been scant occasions without at least one of the former president's envoys on the scene. Only this past week saw the presence of a senior advisor, Steve Witkoff, JD Vance and a political figure – all appearing to execute their duties.

The Israeli government occupies their time. In just a few days it launched a series of operations in the region after the killings of two Israel Defense Forces (IDF) personnel – resulting, as reported, in dozens of local fatalities. Several leaders urged a renewal of the fighting, and the Israeli parliament approved a initial measure to annex the West Bank. The US reaction was somehow ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

Yet in more than one sense, the American government seems more focused on preserving the present, uneasy stage of the ceasefire than on moving to the subsequent: the reconstruction of Gaza. When it comes to that, it looks the US may have aspirations but no tangible strategies.

For now, it remains unknown when the planned multinational governing body will effectively begin operating, and the similar applies to the designated peacekeeping troops – or even the identity of its members. On Tuesday, a US official stated the United States would not dictate the composition of the international contingent on Israel. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet continues to reject various proposals – as it did with the Ankara's suggestion recently – what follows? There is also the opposite question: who will decide whether the troops preferred by Israel are even interested in the mission?

The question of the timeframe it will need to disarm the militant group is just as unclear. “Our hope in the administration is that the multinational troops is going to now assume responsibility in disarming Hamas,” remarked the official this week. “It’s going to take a while.” The former president further reinforced the lack of clarity, saying in an conversation on Sunday that there is no “rigid” schedule for the group to disarm. So, hypothetically, the unnamed participants of this not yet established international contingent could enter Gaza while the organization's militants continue to hold power. Would they be confronting a governing body or a militant faction? Among the many of the issues arising. Some might wonder what the result will be for everyday Palestinians under current conditions, with the group carrying on to attack its own political rivals and opposition.

Latest incidents have once again emphasized the blind spots of local journalism on the two sides of the Gaza frontier. Every outlet strives to analyze every possible aspect of the group's infractions of the truce. And, usually, the reality that Hamas has been hindering the repatriation of the bodies of killed Israeli captives has taken over the news.

By contrast, attention of non-combatant deaths in Gaza stemming from Israeli strikes has received scant focus – or none. Consider the Israeli response actions following Sunday’s Rafah incident, in which two soldiers were killed. While Gaza’s authorities reported 44 deaths, Israeli media commentators questioned the “moderate response,” which targeted solely facilities.

This is nothing new. During the recent few days, the information bureau charged Israeli forces of violating the truce with Hamas 47 times since the truce began, resulting in the loss of dozens of individuals and injuring an additional 143. The allegation seemed insignificant to the majority of Israeli news programmes – it was simply ignored. That included reports that eleven members of a Palestinian household were killed by Israeli troops recently.

The rescue organization said the family had been seeking to go back to their residence in the Zeitoun neighbourhood of Gaza City when the bus they were in was attacked for allegedly passing the “yellow line” that marks areas under Israeli military command. This limit is invisible to the human eye and shows up only on charts and in government papers – often not obtainable to everyday people in the region.

Yet this incident barely got a note in Israeli journalism. One source mentioned it in passing on its digital site, referencing an Israeli military official who stated that after a questionable car was identified, troops shot warning shots towards it, “but the transport continued to move toward the troops in a manner that caused an imminent danger to them. The soldiers engaged to eliminate the risk, in accordance with the agreement.” No casualties were stated.

Given this narrative, it is little wonder numerous Israelis feel the group solely is to blame for breaking the ceasefire. That belief risks encouraging demands for a stronger approach in Gaza.

Eventually – maybe sooner than expected – it will no longer be sufficient for all the president’s men to act as kindergarten teachers, instructing the Israeli government what to avoid. They will {have to|need