🔗 Share this article

These times exhibit a quite unique situation: the pioneering US parade of the caretakers. Their attributes range in their expertise and attributes, but they all have the same objective – to prevent an Israeli breach, or even destruction, of the fragile truce. Since the hostilities ended, there have been rare days without at least one of the former president's representatives on the ground. Just recently featured the presence of Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, JD Vance and a political figure – all coming to perform their duties.

The Israeli government occupies their time. In just a few days it launched a set of strikes in Gaza after the loss of two Israel Defense Forces (IDF) personnel – leading, according to reports, in many of local injuries. A number of officials called for a renewal of the war, and the Knesset enacted a preliminary resolution to incorporate the West Bank. The American stance was somehow between “no” and “hell no.”

But in various respects, the American government appears more intent on upholding the present, unstable stage of the truce than on progressing to the next: the reconstruction of Gaza. Concerning this, it looks the United States may have aspirations but no concrete plans.

For now, it remains uncertain when the suggested global administrative entity will truly assume control, and the similar applies to the appointed security force – or even the composition of its members. On a recent day, a US official said the US would not force the structure of the foreign unit on the Israeli government. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet continues to reject multiple options – as it did with the Ankara's proposal recently – what occurs next? There is also the opposite question: which party will establish whether the forces supported by the Israelis are even willing in the task?

The question of how long it will require to neutralize Hamas is similarly ambiguous. “Our hope in the government is that the multinational troops is intends to at this point assume responsibility in demilitarizing the organization,” remarked the official this week. “It’s may need a period.” The former president further highlighted the uncertainty, saying in an discussion a few days ago that there is no “hard” timeline for the group to demilitarize. So, hypothetically, the unknown participants of this yet-to-be-formed international force could deploy to the territory while Hamas militants still hold power. Are they facing a governing body or a militant faction? These represent only some of the questions emerging. Others might question what the result will be for everyday Palestinians under current conditions, with the group carrying on to attack its own opponents and critics.

Current developments have yet again underscored the blind spots of local media coverage on both sides of the Gazan border. Each publication seeks to analyze every possible aspect of Hamas’s infractions of the ceasefire. And, typically, the situation that Hamas has been stalling the return of the remains of killed Israeli captives has taken over the coverage.

Conversely, coverage of civilian deaths in the region resulting from Israeli attacks has obtained little attention – if at all. Take the Israeli retaliatory attacks in the wake of a recent Rafah event, in which two military personnel were lost. While local sources stated dozens of casualties, Israeli news analysts complained about the “moderate response,” which focused on just infrastructure.

This is typical. Over the previous weekend, the press agency accused Israeli forces of breaking the truce with the group multiple occasions after the ceasefire was implemented, killing 38 individuals and wounding an additional 143. The allegation seemed irrelevant to most Israeli news programmes – it was just missing. Even information that eleven members of a local family were killed by Israeli troops last Friday.

The emergency services reported the group had been attempting to go back to their home in the a Gaza City district of the city when the transport they were in was targeted for reportedly crossing the “boundary” that defines zones under Israeli military authority. That boundary is not visible to the naked eye and appears just on maps and in official papers – often not available to everyday residents in the area.

Even this event barely rated a mention in Israeli journalism. Channel 13 News referred to it shortly on its digital site, citing an Israeli military representative who said that after a suspicious vehicle was identified, forces discharged cautionary rounds towards it, “but the car continued to advance on the soldiers in a manner that created an direct threat to them. The troops engaged to remove the risk, in compliance with the ceasefire.” Zero injuries were claimed.

Given this framing, it is no surprise a lot of Israeli citizens believe the group exclusively is to at fault for infringing the ceasefire. This view threatens prompting calls for a tougher stance in the region.

Eventually – possibly in the near future – it will no longer be adequate for all the president’s men to play caretakers, advising the Israeli government what to avoid. They will {have to|need