🔗 Share this article

These times exhibit a very unusual occurrence: the inaugural US march of the overseers. Their qualifications differ in their qualifications and characteristics, but they all have the identical goal – to avert an Israeli infringement, or even demolition, of Gaza’s fragile peace agreement. Since the war ended, there have been scant occasions without at least one of the former president's delegates on the territory. Just recently featured the presence of a senior advisor, a businessman, a senator and a political figure – all arriving to perform their assignments.

The Israeli government engages them fully. In only a few days it executed a wave of attacks in Gaza after the deaths of two Israeli military personnel – resulting, as reported, in scores of local fatalities. A number of ministers demanded a renewal of the conflict, and the Knesset passed a initial measure to incorporate the West Bank. The American reaction was somehow ranging from “no” and “hell no.”

But in more than one sense, the US leadership seems more concentrated on upholding the present, uneasy stage of the peace than on advancing to the next: the reconstruction of Gaza. When it comes to that, it looks the United States may have aspirations but little concrete plans.

Currently, it is unclear at what point the planned multinational oversight committee will truly begin operating, and the similar goes for the proposed military contingent – or even the identity of its members. On Tuesday, a US official stated the US would not force the membership of the foreign contingent on the Israeli government. But if Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration keeps to reject various proposals – as it acted with the Ankara's offer recently – what follows? There is also the reverse point: who will determine whether the units supported by Israel are even prepared in the mission?

The issue of the duration it will take to neutralize Hamas is equally vague. “The expectation in the government is that the multinational troops is will at this point take the lead in neutralizing the organization,” said the official recently. “It’s going to take a period.” The former president further highlighted the lack of clarity, saying in an interview on Sunday that there is no “fixed” schedule for the group to disarm. So, hypothetically, the unnamed participants of this still unformed global contingent could enter the territory while Hamas members continue to hold power. Are they dealing with a administration or a insurgent group? These are just a few of the questions arising. Others might ask what the outcome will be for everyday civilians under current conditions, with the group persisting to attack its own opponents and opposition.

Latest developments have once again emphasized the omissions of local media coverage on the two sides of the Gazan boundary. Each outlet strives to examine each potential aspect of Hamas’s violations of the ceasefire. And, in general, the situation that Hamas has been hindering the return of the bodies of killed Israeli hostages has dominated the headlines.

By contrast, coverage of non-combatant fatalities in the region stemming from Israeli operations has obtained little focus – if any. Consider the Israeli counter strikes following Sunday’s Rafah occurrence, in which a pair of troops were fatally wounded. While Gaza’s officials claimed dozens of fatalities, Israeli television analysts complained about the “limited reaction,” which targeted only installations.

This is nothing new. During the recent weekend, Gaza’s information bureau charged Israel of infringing the truce with the group 47 times after the truce was implemented, killing 38 Palestinians and wounding an additional many more. The allegation was unimportant to the majority of Israeli media outlets – it was merely missing. This applied to information that eleven members of a Palestinian family were killed by Israeli troops recently.

Gaza’s rescue organization said the group had been seeking to return to their dwelling in the a Gaza City area of the city when the vehicle they were in was fired upon for allegedly crossing the “demarcation line” that defines zones under Israeli army control. That yellow line is invisible to the human eye and is visible just on plans and in government records – not always available to ordinary people in the area.

Even that incident barely rated a reference in Israeli news outlets. A major outlet mentioned it shortly on its digital site, referencing an IDF official who explained that after a suspicious vehicle was identified, soldiers fired alerting fire towards it, “but the car kept to move toward the soldiers in a manner that created an imminent danger to them. The soldiers opened fire to eliminate the risk, in accordance with the ceasefire.” No injuries were claimed.

Given such perspective, it is little wonder many Israelis feel Hamas alone is to at fault for violating the ceasefire. That perception threatens encouraging appeals for a more aggressive strategy in the region.

Sooner or later – possibly in the near future – it will no longer be enough for US envoys to act as caretakers, instructing the Israeli government what not to do. They will {have to|need