🔗 Share this article

These days present a quite unique phenomenon: the first-ever US procession of the babysitters. Their attributes range in their qualifications and characteristics, but they all share the common goal – to prevent an Israeli breach, or even destruction, of the fragile ceasefire. After the hostilities finished, there have been scant days without at least one of Donald Trump’s representatives on the territory. Just this past week included the arrival of a senior advisor, a businessman, a senator and Marco Rubio – all arriving to perform their duties.

Israel keeps them busy. In just a few short period it launched a wave of attacks in Gaza after the deaths of two Israeli military personnel – leading, according to reports, in scores of local casualties. Multiple officials urged a resumption of the fighting, and the Israeli parliament enacted a early measure to incorporate the West Bank. The US response was somewhere between “no” and “hell no.”

However in more than one sense, the US leadership seems more concentrated on upholding the existing, unstable phase of the peace than on moving to the next: the rehabilitation of Gaza. Regarding that, it looks the US may have ambitions but few concrete proposals.

Currently, it remains uncertain when the suggested international administrative entity will effectively assume control, and the similar is true for the proposed peacekeeping troops – or even the identity of its soldiers. On a recent day, Vance said the US would not force the structure of the international contingent on Israel. But if the prime minister's government continues to dismiss various proposals – as it did with the Ankara's proposal recently – what follows? There is also the reverse issue: which party will decide whether the forces preferred by Israel are even prepared in the mission?

The question of the duration it will take to neutralize Hamas is equally ambiguous. “The expectation in the leadership is that the global peacekeeping unit is going to now assume responsibility in demilitarizing the organization,” stated Vance recently. “That’s may need a while.” The former president only emphasized the ambiguity, stating in an conversation on Sunday that there is no “rigid” timeline for Hamas to lay down arms. So, theoretically, the unidentified members of this yet-to-be-formed international force could enter the territory while the organization's members still remain in control. Would they be confronting a leadership or a guerrilla movement? These represent only some of the concerns arising. Others might wonder what the outcome will be for ordinary civilians under current conditions, with Hamas continuing to attack its own adversaries and critics.

Current developments have yet again emphasized the blind spots of Israeli journalism on the two sides of the Gaza border. Every publication strives to examine each potential angle of the group's infractions of the peace. And, usually, the reality that Hamas has been stalling the return of the bodies of deceased Israeli captives has monopolized the coverage.

Conversely, coverage of civilian fatalities in the region stemming from Israeli attacks has garnered little focus – or none. Take the Israeli response strikes in the wake of Sunday’s southern Gaza event, in which two military personnel were fatally wounded. While Gaza’s authorities claimed 44 fatalities, Israeli television pundits complained about the “light response,” which targeted only installations.

This is not new. Over the recent few days, Gaza’s media office accused Israel of infringing the truce with the group multiple occasions after the truce was implemented, causing the death of dozens of Palestinians and injuring an additional many more. The claim appeared unimportant to the majority of Israeli reporting – it was merely absent. Even reports that 11 members of a local family were fatally shot by Israeli troops recently.

Gaza’s civil defence agency stated the individuals had been trying to return to their dwelling in the Zeitoun district of the city when the vehicle they were in was fired upon for supposedly passing the “yellow line” that defines zones under Israeli army control. That boundary is invisible to the ordinary view and shows up solely on charts and in authoritative records – not always available to everyday residents in the area.

Yet that incident scarcely received a mention in Israeli journalism. Channel 13 News covered it in passing on its website, citing an Israeli military official who said that after a questionable car was spotted, soldiers fired cautionary rounds towards it, “but the vehicle persisted to move toward the soldiers in a way that created an imminent danger to them. The forces opened fire to remove the risk, in compliance with the ceasefire.” No injuries were reported.

Amid such framing, it is little wonder many Israelis think Hamas alone is to responsible for infringing the ceasefire. That belief threatens prompting appeals for a more aggressive stance in Gaza.

Eventually – possibly sooner rather than later – it will not be sufficient for US envoys to take on the role of kindergarten teachers, advising the Israeli government what to refrain from. They will {have to|need