🔗 Share this article

These days showcase a quite unique situation: the first-ever US procession of the overseers. They vary in their qualifications and traits, but they all have the identical objective – to stop an Israeli violation, or even destruction, of Gaza’s fragile truce. After the hostilities finished, there have been scant occasions without at least one of the former president's envoys on the ground. Only recently featured the likes of a senior advisor, a businessman, a senator and Marco Rubio – all appearing to execute their duties.

The Israeli government keeps them busy. In only a few short period it initiated a wave of operations in the region after the killings of two Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops – resulting, as reported, in many of Palestinian casualties. Several ministers called for a renewal of the war, and the Knesset passed a initial decision to annex the occupied territories. The American stance was somewhere between “no” and “hell no.”

Yet in several ways, the American government seems more intent on upholding the current, unstable phase of the truce than on progressing to the subsequent: the rehabilitation of Gaza. Concerning this, it appears the United States may have goals but little specific strategies.

Currently, it remains uncertain when the planned international administrative entity will actually take power, and the identical applies to the appointed military contingent – or even the composition of its members. On a recent day, a US official stated the US would not force the structure of the foreign unit on Israel. But if the prime minister's cabinet continues to refuse one alternative after another – as it acted with the Ankara's offer recently – what follows? There is also the reverse point: which party will establish whether the units supported by Israel are even interested in the assignment?

The matter of how long it will require to neutralize the militant group is similarly ambiguous. “The aim in the administration is that the international security force is going to now take the lead in neutralizing Hamas,” said Vance lately. “That’s going to take a while.” The former president further highlighted the ambiguity, saying in an discussion on Sunday that there is no “rigid” timeline for Hamas to demilitarize. So, hypothetically, the unknown members of this not yet established global contingent could enter Gaza while Hamas fighters still remain in control. Would they be confronting a governing body or a militant faction? These represent only some of the concerns emerging. Others might ask what the verdict will be for ordinary residents in the present situation, with the group persisting to focus on its own opponents and opposition.

Latest incidents have afresh underscored the omissions of Israeli journalism on both sides of the Gazan boundary. Every outlet attempts to scrutinize all conceivable aspect of the group's violations of the ceasefire. And, usually, the reality that Hamas has been delaying the repatriation of the bodies of slain Israeli hostages has taken over the news.

By contrast, coverage of non-combatant fatalities in Gaza caused by Israeli strikes has garnered scant notice – if at all. Consider the Israeli retaliatory actions in the wake of Sunday’s southern Gaza incident, in which a pair of military personnel were fatally wounded. While Gaza’s authorities reported 44 casualties, Israeli media pundits criticised the “limited reaction,” which targeted only facilities.

This is not new. During the previous few days, the information bureau charged Israel of violating the truce with Hamas 47 times after the truce was implemented, resulting in the loss of 38 Palestinians and injuring another many more. The allegation was irrelevant to most Israeli media outlets – it was simply ignored. Even information that eleven members of a local household were fatally shot by Israeli troops last Friday.

Gaza’s emergency services stated the family had been trying to go back to their residence in the a Gaza City area of the city when the bus they were in was fired upon for allegedly going over the “demarcation line” that demarcates territories under Israeli army control. This boundary is unseen to the ordinary view and appears solely on charts and in authoritative papers – often not available to average residents in the area.

Yet this event scarcely rated a mention in Israeli journalism. Channel 13 News covered it in passing on its website, quoting an Israeli military spokesperson who said that after a suspicious car was spotted, forces discharged cautionary rounds towards it, “but the transport persisted to advance on the soldiers in a fashion that posed an imminent risk to them. The soldiers opened fire to eliminate the threat, in accordance with the agreement.” No casualties were claimed.

With this perspective, it is little wonder many Israelis feel the group exclusively is to blame for breaking the truce. This belief risks encouraging calls for a stronger stance in the region.

Sooner or later – possibly in the near future – it will not be adequate for American representatives to act as kindergarten teachers, telling Israel what to avoid. They will {have to|need