The US envoy held two hours of talks with Hamas leader Khalil al-Hayya in Egypt before meeting Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem, as Washington attempts to bridge fundamental differences over disarmament, Israeli withdrawal and the future governance of Gaza.
Jared Kushner has moved to the centre of an intensified American diplomatic effort to revive the stalled Gaza peace process, holding an unusually direct meeting with senior Hamas officials in Egypt before travelling to Jerusalem for talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and Middle East envoy, met Hamas leader Khalil al-Hayya for approximately two hours as part of negotiations surrounding a US-backed 15-point roadmap for Gaza. The encounter represents only the second publicly known meeting between Kushner and representatives of Hamas, which the United States designates as a terrorist organisation.
The meeting is notable not simply because of the participants but because Washington is attempting to move beyond indirect diplomacy at a particularly delicate moment. The ceasefire established in October 2025 ended the most intensive phase of fighting and facilitated the release of the remaining hostages seized during the Hamas-led attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, but implementation of the broader political settlement has since stalled.
At the heart of the latest negotiations is a fundamental disagreement over sequencing.
The American-backed roadmap envisages the demilitarisation of Hamas alongside a phased withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, followed by an expanded role for Palestinian civilian institutions and an international stabilisation mechanism. Trump announced in July that an agreement had been reached in principle around those objectives.
Hamas has indicated conditional support for the framework and, according to people familiar with the Egypt discussions, again signalled that it was prepared to move toward demilitarisation. But the group has insisted that Israeli military operations must cease and that Israeli forces begin withdrawing as part of the process.
Netanyahu has taken a substantially different position. The Israeli prime minister has rejected withdrawing Israeli troops before Hamas has been fully disarmed, arguing that Israel cannot relinquish military control while the organisation retains weapons and the ability to threaten Israeli forces or civilians.
That disagreement has turned the question of which side acts first into one of the principal obstacles to implementing the next stage of the ceasefire.
Kushner’s mission appears designed to break that deadlock.
Following the Egypt talks, he travelled to Jerusalem and met Netanyahu on Monday, August 17, accompanied by other figures involved in the US-led diplomatic initiative, including former British prime minister Tony Blair and Board of Peace Director-General Nickolay Mladenov.
The meeting followed broader discussions in Egypt involving representatives from several of the region’s most important mediating powers, including Egypt, Qatar and Turkey. Those governments have played central roles in negotiations throughout the Gaza conflict and are now attempting to establish guarantees that would allow both Israel and Hamas to take reciprocal steps without either side believing it has surrendered its primary leverage.
The challenge is considerable.
Israeli forces continue to control large areas of Gaza, while Hamas remains deeply distrustful that an agreement to surrender its military capabilities would ultimately produce a complete Israeli withdrawal. Israel, meanwhile, remains sceptical that Hamas would genuinely dismantle its military infrastructure rather than use a withdrawal to rebuild its armed capacity.
The American plan attempts to resolve that problem through phased and verifiable implementation. Hamas would progressively surrender or decommission weapons and military infrastructure, while Israeli forces would withdraw in stages. An international stabilisation force, working alongside a reconstituted Palestinian police structure, would eventually assume security responsibilities in parts of Gaza.
The plan also seeks to remove Hamas from future civilian governance.
Under the proposed arrangement, administrative authority would be transferred to a Palestinian technocratic body rather than remaining under Hamas control. That provision is intended to separate Gaza’s civilian administration from the organisation’s armed wing and create conditions for reconstruction after years of devastating conflict.
Kushner reportedly pressed Hamas representatives to demonstrate their commitment through tangible and verifiable steps toward disarmament, arguing that concrete action would be necessary to overcome Israeli scepticism. Hamas representatives, in turn, emphasised continuing Israeli strikes and demanded reciprocal measures from Israel.
The diplomatic push is taking place against a backdrop of continuing violence. Israeli strikes in Gaza have persisted despite the broader ceasefire framework, adding to Palestinian accusations that Israel has failed to comply fully with its obligations. Israel maintains that military action remains necessary against individuals or infrastructure it considers an immediate security threat.
Regional pressure on Netanyahu is also increasing.
A group of Arab and Muslim-majority governments has criticised Israel’s rejection of the latest roadmap and urged Washington and the US-created Board of Peace to push the parties toward implementation. Egypt, Qatar and Turkey have been especially important intermediaries, while Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan have also expressed support for renewed diplomatic efforts.
Domestic Israeli politics add another layer of complexity. Netanyahu is campaigning ahead of elections expected in October, leaving him exposed to competing pressures from Washington, Israeli security considerations and political allies who oppose concessions to Hamas or a broader Palestinian political settlement.
For the Trump administration, the latest diplomatic push carries considerable political significance. The White House wants to transform the October 2025 ceasefire from a temporary cessation of large-scale hostilities into a durable political framework capable of addressing Gaza’s security, reconstruction and future governance.
Kushner’s direct engagement with Hamas suggests that Washington believes conventional mediation alone may no longer be sufficient.
The approach is diplomatically unusual. American officials have traditionally avoided direct political engagement with Hamas because of the organisation’s terrorist designation. Yet Kushner previously met Hamas representatives alongside US envoy Steve Witkoff in October 2025 during negotiations that contributed to the ceasefire and the release of the remaining Israeli hostages.
His latest meeting therefore appears to reflect a pragmatic calculation: that direct communication may be necessary if Washington is to secure specific commitments and prevent competing interpretations of the agreement from derailing implementation.
Whether that approach can produce a breakthrough remains uncertain.
The differences separating Israel and Hamas are not merely technical. They concern the fundamental military and political balance that will emerge in Gaza once the transitional process begins. Hamas wants assurance that surrendering its weapons will result in the end of Israel’s military presence. Netanyahu wants assurance that Israel will not withdraw while Hamas retains the ability to rearm.
Bridging those positions will require more than a declaration of principles. It will require a sequence of actions that each side can verify — and that mediators are capable of enforcing.
Kushner’s meetings in Cairo and Jerusalem therefore mark an important escalation in American diplomatic involvement, but not yet a diplomatic breakthrough.
The immediate test will be whether Washington can persuade Hamas to begin demonstrable demilitarisation while simultaneously securing Israeli commitments to halt further escalation and initiate corresponding withdrawals.
If those reciprocal steps can be established, the Gaza ceasefire could move toward a more durable political settlement. If they cannot, the disagreement over who must move first risks becoming the fault line on which the entire American peace initiative breaks apart.
