🔗 Share this article

These times showcase a quite distinctive occurrence: the inaugural US procession of the overseers. Their attributes range in their expertise and traits, but they all share the identical mission – to prevent an Israeli violation, or even destruction, of Gaza’s fragile peace agreement. After the conflict finished, there have been few occasions without at least one of the former president's representatives on the ground. Only this past week saw the arrival of a senior advisor, a businessman, a senator and a political figure – all coming to carry out their roles.

Israel engages them fully. In just a few short period it launched a set of strikes in Gaza after the loss of a pair of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) personnel – leading, based on accounts, in scores of local casualties. A number of leaders demanded a restart of the conflict, and the Israeli parliament approved a initial measure to take over the occupied territories. The American response was somehow ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

But in several ways, the American government appears more intent on upholding the present, uneasy stage of the peace than on moving to the subsequent: the rebuilding of Gaza. Concerning this, it looks the United States may have aspirations but little specific strategies.

For now, it is unclear when the proposed multinational oversight committee will truly assume control, and the identical applies to the appointed security force – or even the makeup of its members. On Tuesday, Vance declared the US would not dictate the structure of the international unit on the Israeli government. But if the prime minister's cabinet continues to reject various proposals – as it acted with the Turkish proposal lately – what happens then? There is also the opposite issue: who will establish whether the troops supported by the Israelis are even willing in the task?

The issue of the duration it will require to disarm Hamas is similarly unclear. “The expectation in the government is that the multinational troops is intends to at this point take charge in disarming the organization,” said the official lately. “That’s going to take a while.” The former president further emphasized the ambiguity, saying in an interview a few days ago that there is no “fixed” timeline for the group to demilitarize. So, in theory, the unnamed elements of this still unformed global force could enter Gaza while Hamas members still remain in control. Would they be confronting a leadership or a militant faction? These represent only some of the concerns arising. Some might question what the result will be for ordinary civilians as things stand, with the group continuing to focus on its own opponents and opposition.

Recent events have afresh highlighted the omissions of Israeli media coverage on each side of the Gaza boundary. Each source attempts to examine every possible aspect of the group's infractions of the peace. And, typically, the situation that Hamas has been stalling the return of the remains of killed Israeli hostages has taken over the news.

By contrast, attention of non-combatant deaths in Gaza caused by Israeli attacks has garnered little focus – or none. Take the Israeli counter attacks after Sunday’s Rafah occurrence, in which a pair of military personnel were fatally wounded. While local sources stated 44 deaths, Israeli news analysts questioned the “moderate answer,” which hit just installations.

That is not new. During the previous weekend, Gaza’s media office alleged Israeli forces of breaking the truce with Hamas multiple times since the ceasefire began, resulting in the loss of dozens of Palestinians and injuring an additional 143. The allegation seemed unimportant to the majority of Israeli media outlets – it was merely missing. This applied to information that eleven members of a Palestinian household were killed by Israeli soldiers a few days ago.

Gaza’s rescue organization reported the family had been trying to go back to their residence in the a Gaza City area of Gaza City when the transport they were in was targeted for reportedly passing the “boundary” that defines zones under Israeli army command. This limit is invisible to the ordinary view and is visible solely on maps and in official papers – not always available to everyday residents in the region.

Even that event barely received a mention in Israeli journalism. Channel 13 News referred to it in passing on its digital site, quoting an IDF spokesperson who explained that after a questionable transport was identified, troops discharged warning shots towards it, “but the vehicle persisted to move toward the troops in a manner that posed an imminent risk to them. The soldiers shot to eliminate the risk, in compliance with the ceasefire.” Zero injuries were reported.

Amid this framing, it is little wonder many Israelis think the group exclusively is to responsible for violating the ceasefire. This belief could lead to prompting demands for a tougher strategy in the region.

Eventually – perhaps sooner rather than later – it will not be sufficient for American representatives to act as supervisors, advising the Israeli government what not to do. They will {have to|need