Kushner Meets Netanyahu Hours After Rare Hamas Talks as Trump Tries to Break the Gaza Deadlock

Trump’s Gaza Plan Faces Its Biggest Test as Kushner Holds Talks With Hamas and Netanyahu

Hamas, Netanyahu and Trump’s Gaza Gamble: Why Kushner’s Meetings Matter

Jared Kushner has met Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem just a day after holding rare direct talks with Hamas leader Khalil al-Hayya in Egypt, putting Donald Trump’s Gaza strategy through one of its most important tests yet. The diplomatic shuttle is designed to break a deadlock that increasingly comes down to one dangerous question: does Hamas disarm first, or does Israel withdraw first?

The latest American-backed roadmap attempts to make both things happen as part of the same transition. Hamas would surrender its military power, Israeli forces would withdraw from Gaza in stages, a new Palestinian administration would assume civilian authority and an international security structure would help stabilise the territory. Netanyahu has rejected the current proposal because Israel does not accept withdrawal before Hamas has been fully disarmed.

From Cairo to Jerusalem in Less Than a Day

Kushner met al-Hayya during talks in Egypt on Sunday, August 16, alongside figures involved in the wider American-backed peace effort. It was an extraordinary piece of diplomacy because direct contact between senior American representatives and Hamas remains rare, even though US officials have previously engaged the organisation during negotiations over hostages and ceasefire arrangements.

Kushner then moved to Jerusalem for talks with Netanyahu on Monday, August 17. Nickolay Mladenov, the senior figure overseeing implementation of the Gaza framework, was also involved in the diplomatic push, while former British prime minister Tony Blair has participated in the wider negotiations.

The sequence matters. Washington is no longer merely transmitting messages between two sides through distant intermediaries. Kushner has heard Hamas’s position directly and has then taken the diplomatic effort to the Israeli prime minister, giving the Trump administration an unusually direct view of precisely where the agreement is failing.

The Dispute Is No Longer About the Goal — It Is About Who Moves First

On paper, several parts of the end state are becoming clearer. The American-backed framework envisages Hamas ceasing to control Gaza militarily and politically, Israeli troops withdrawing, Palestinian civilian institutions taking responsibility for administration and reconstruction beginning under international supervision.

The problem is sequencing.

Israel wants Hamas fully disarmed before Israeli forces retreat. Hamas says it has accepted the roadmap but argues that Israeli attacks must stop and Israeli forces must withdraw as the process is implemented. Israeli troops currently control roughly 60 per cent of Gaza, making the withdrawal question far more than a diplomatic technicality.

That creates a circular security problem. Israel does not trust Hamas enough to withdraw while the organisation retains weapons. Hamas does not trust Israel enough to surrender its remaining military leverage before Israeli forces pull back.

This is the same fundamental weakness that has threatened Trump’s wider Gaza peace strategy: the final destination can be written down, but somebody still has to take the first irreversible step.

Hamas Is Offering Washington a Test

Hamas representatives told Kushner they remained committed to demilitarising Gaza, according to people familiar with the discussions, while asking Washington to push Israel towards implementing its own obligations under the proposed settlement. Hamas has also argued publicly that it has accepted the latest roadmap.

That should not be confused with completed disarmament.

The critical test is whether political commitments turn into verifiable actions involving weapons, military infrastructure, command structures and control on the ground. The distinction matters because an agreement in principle costs far less than physically surrendering the armed power that has defined Hamas for decades.

For Hamas, there is nevertheless a strategic incentive to appear cooperative. If it can demonstrate credible movement towards demilitarisation while Israel rejects the roadmap, diplomatic pressure moves towards Netanyahu. If Hamas refuses meaningful disarmament, the pressure moves straight back.

Kushner’s meeting therefore creates a test rather than a breakthrough.

Why Netanyahu Is Resisting the Roadmap

Netanyahu’s objection goes to the centre of Israel’s post-war security strategy. He has insisted that Hamas and other armed groups must be disarmed before Israel makes the withdrawal demanded under the American framework.

From Israel’s perspective, withdrawing first creates the possibility that Hamas survives militarily, rebuilds and eventually presents another threat. Netanyahu can therefore argue that a promise of future disarmament is not equivalent to actual demilitarisation.

But the position creates its own strategic risk.

If Hamas demonstrates meaningful compliance while Israel continues refusing the roadmap, Washington and Arab governments could increasingly see Netanyahu rather than Hamas as the obstacle preventing implementation. Several important regional governments have already criticised Israel’s rejection of the latest proposal and called for movement towards the next stage.

Domestic politics makes the calculation even harder. Israel is moving towards elections in October, meaning Netanyahu faces political incentives that do not necessarily align neatly with the compromises demanded by an internationally brokered settlement.

A concession that appears pragmatic internationally can become ammunition domestically.

Trump Now Has a Credibility Problem to Solve

The White House has invested far more in the Gaza process than simply calling for another temporary ceasefire.

The wider strategy connects demilitarisation, Israeli withdrawal, Palestinian technocratic government, international security involvement and reconstruction. If implemented, it would begin moving Gaza from an indefinite military conflict towards a new political order.

That makes Kushner’s mission particularly important for Trump.

If Washington can secure visible concessions from Hamas and Israel, Trump can argue that his administration created a mechanism capable of forcing movement where previous negotiations stalled. If the process collapses because neither party is prepared to move first, the architecture may prove far less powerful than its announcements suggested.

The central question is therefore becoming one of American leverage.

Can Trump persuade Hamas to surrender weapons it regards as fundamental to its power while simultaneously persuading Netanyahu to surrender territorial control Israel regards as fundamental to its security?

Getting one side to move is difficult. Getting both sides to make actions they regard as potentially irreversible is much harder.

The Regional Powers Are Watching

Egypt, Qatar and Turkey remain central to the mediation structure, while other Arab governments have a major interest in whether Gaza moves towards reconstruction or returns to deeper conflict. Their interests overlap without being identical.

Egypt wants stability on its border. Gulf governments want a political structure capable of receiving reconstruction funding without simply restoring Hamas rule. Turkey and Qatar retain channels that can help influence Hamas. The United States needs all of them because neither Washington nor Israel can build a workable post-war Gaza system alone.

There is also a wider strategic calculation.

Arab governments considering deeper economic and security relationships with Israel need evidence that Gaza has a political destination. Permanent Israeli military control, continued Hamas armament and endless low-level warfare make wider regional normalisation harder to defend.

Success would therefore extend beyond Gaza. A functioning settlement could reopen space for a larger regional diplomatic architecture connecting Israel, Gulf states, the United States and new Palestinian institutions.

Failure would reinforce the opposite conclusion: that even extraordinary diplomatic pressure cannot bridge the core Israeli-Palestinian security conflict.

What Happens Next

The immediate question is whether Kushner can extract something concrete from Netanyahu following his meeting with Hamas.

The roadmap will only become meaningful when promises turn into measurable steps. That could mean a defined process for Hamas weapons surrender, verified destruction or transfer of military infrastructure, a timetable for Israeli withdrawals, deployment of alternative Palestinian security structures and practical authority for the Palestinian technocratic administration.

Each stage would need to be tied to the next. Hamas is unlikely to surrender everything and simply trust Israel to leave later. Israel is unlikely to withdraw and simply trust Hamas to disarm afterwards.

The workable middle ground is therefore likely to be simultaneous, conditional and verified movement: one Hamas step producing one Israeli step, followed by another, with outside parties judging compliance.

That sounds technical. In reality, it may be the only structure capable of breaking the distrust.

Kushner’s journey from a room with Hamas leaders in Egypt to Netanyahu’s office in Jerusalem captures the strange position Trump’s Gaza diplomacy has reached. Washington now appears capable of talking directly to virtually everyone who matters. The harder task is proving that access can be converted into obedience.

The next breakthrough will not be another meeting. It will be the first irreversible action taken by one side because it believes the other side will actually follow.