It's happened before after which the RAF launched some airstrikes. Trump didn't and probably still doesn't want Israel to respond.
I suppose there can be a rationale to be understood if that is, indeed, the reason why.
Let's say and assume Trump does not want Israel to respond to Hamas attacking IDF troops, ok. But what if the IDF had responded? We know the Hamas operatives would have been killed (and nothing of value would have been lost), and perhaps some civilians would have also been either been wounded or killed in the process. Hypothetically, yes, but that's nevertheless a possibility. To be fair, the IDF tends to be heavy handed at times.
Knowing how things work with Hamas, the Palestinians, the Palywoodism and the international activist supporters, that incident, even if didn't cause collateral, would have been turned and twisted into something out of proportions and outrage would have followed. Anger and violence flaring back, especially considering the ember of the war are still hot, and we are in for another round of clashes.
Not really what anybody needs right now.
Hamas is still there, it is still active, though far beyond its previous capabilities. Their actions are more or less on par with those of violent thugs, but still dissuasive enough to remind the Palestinians they (Hamas) are the ones in charge. The people are still in shock following the war, they still remember what Hamas is capable of, even though Hamas has been drastically diminished.
Does it mean Israel should take it and not say anything? No.
Perhaps the idea is to let things go for a while to see how they go. If the violence are organized and generalized or just the result of isolated groups playing by their own rules. Which would imply asking Israel to indeed take it and not say anything. And I don't think that something Israel will be willing to accept very long.
But where the solution could be is if Israel does not respond, but another country (the US) does it for Israel.
Trump said they would get involved if necessary, and this can be done without sending boots on the ground. Let's say, a couple of AC130 being deployed in Israel and running circles above Hamas dirt holes. Who will Hamas retaliate against? The US would be the one doing the killing of terrorists, not Israel. Therefore the propagandists and Hamas apologists won't be able to spew their usual Israel is committing genocide.
Instead they will have to go for twist of their mediocre "Trump is killing innocent fishermen totally not transporting drugs in their totally not narco-submarines".
Ah well, nevermind. The Israeli military did not immediately comment on the strikes, which followed a statement by Netanyahu's office saying he had ordered immediate attacks after Israeli forces got targeted and attacked in Gaza, an accusation Hamas has denied (guess the IDF attacked itself again then). The statement did not give a specific reason for the attacks but an Israeli military official said Hamas had violated the ceasefire by carrying out an attack against Israeli forces in an area of the enclave that is under Israeli control.
At least two people were killed and four wounded in a strike on a residential building in the city's Sabra neighborhood, and an area close to Shifa hospital was also hit, according to Gaza officials, witnesses and Hamas media (all of them the epitome of trustworthiness).
Though Hamas denied responsibility for an attack on Israeli forces in Rafah, the group also reiterated in a statement that it remained committed to the ceasefire deal in Gaza. Based on that it could be assumed/inferred that part of Hamas is committed to respecting the ceasefire, but another part of Hamas is absolutely not.
Could that lead to a future scission within the group?
www.bbc.com
www.timesofisrael.com
m.youtube.com
www.bbc.com
