Kushner and Netanyahu Meet as Gaza Peace Plan Stalls

In a recent BBC News report, United States Middle East envoy Jared Kushner held lengthy talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem, pressing a stalled American peace plan for Gaza that Israel has so far refused to accept.

Kushner's Gaza Push Hits Netanyahu's Red Line

Jerusalem – 17 August 2026 — Kushner's meeting with Netanyahu on Monday followed his rare talks with Hamas leaders in Cairo the day before, and ended without a public breakthrough, according to Reuters. The visit was an attempt to restart the US-backed Gaza peace plan after Israel rejected it last week. The two days of shuttle diplomacy, shuttling between Cairo and Jerusalem, underscored the depth of the divide between Washington's stated optimism and the Israeli government's firm security demands.

Lengthy Talks in Jerusalem

The meeting on Monday lasted more than four hours, according to CNN, a duration that signaled the intensity of the negotiations. Israel's prime minister's office said Israel and the board agreed there would be no reconstruction in Gaza without Hamas's complete disarmament. The office described "deep and constructive discussions" and said two working groups would be established — one on disarmament and demilitarisation of Gaza, which must be prompt and completed before any reconstruction, and one on sanitation, clean water and other public health issues for the people of Gaza. This framing, placing disarmament as a precondition for any rebuilding, represents the core of the Israeli position that has proven so contentious in previous rounds of negotiation.

Board of Peace envoys Nickolay Mladenov and Tony Blair also met Netanyahu on Monday, according to Israeli media reports, adding a layer of international diplomatic weight to the proceedings. Israeli President Isaac Herzog posted a picture of himself on social media alongside members of the Board of Peace's delegation, a gesture of engagement even as disagreements remained. No official joint statement was released after the meeting.

The outcome appeared short of the breakthrough Washington had hoped for, with Reuters reporting that Kushner left Jerusalem without a breakthrough after two days of talks. The lack of a joint communiqué suggests that while the conversations were substantive, the fundamental gap between Washington and Jerusalem remains wide. The two working groups, however, provide a mechanism for continued engagement.

Rare Talks With Hamas in Cairo

A Palestinian official told the BBC that Kushner met a delegation led by Hamas's new leader Khalil al-Hayya in Egypt on Sunday. It is believed to be the first meeting at this level since last year's ceasefire agreement for the Gaza Strip, marking a significant diplomatic development in the region. Mladenov, the high representative for Gaza to the Board of Peace, and Blair, the former British prime minister, were also part of the meeting, alongside representatives of Egypt, Qatar and Turkey. The presence of these regional actors underscores the multilateral nature of the effort.

The talks reportedly focused on concrete actions to decommission Hamas's weapons, the withdrawal of Israeli troops and humanitarian efforts. A source with knowledge of the meeting told CBS News that the agenda included beginning to transfer all governing responsibilities to the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, ensuring Hamas has no future governing role, facilitating Israeli withdrawals and deploying an international stabilising force. The translation of these agenda items into binding agreements remains a distant prospect given the deep mistrust between the parties.

Hamas later called on mediators and the Board of Peace to "compel" Israel to approve the roadmap, reflecting the group's frustration and its insistence that international pressure be applied to Israel. Kushner also met Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi on Sunday, a meeting that underscores Egypt's central role as a mediator and its own security interests in the stability of Gaza. No official statement was released after the Cairo talks, leaving the details of the discussions to be pieced together from anonymous sources and official leaks.

The Board of Peace and the 15-Point Plan

Last week Israel rejected Trump's 15-point plan for peace, which calls for Israeli troops to withdraw and Gaza to be rebuilt under a new civilian Palestinian administration. Trump leads the Board of Peace, an international organisation originally created to bring peace to Gaza, later expanded to include conflicts worldwide. The rejection was a significant blow to the administration's diplomatic efforts, and Kushner's subsequent visit was widely seen as an attempt to salvage the initiative. The plan's core premise, that a civilian administration can replace Hamas's governance and that reconstruction can proceed in tandem with security arrangements, has been met with deep scepticism in Israel.

On Monday, Trump was reported to have said on Fox News that Hamas "are giving up their guns" and that Israel should not be carrying out strikes in Gaza. His comments underscored the widening gap between Washington's optimism and Israel's firm rejection of the roadmap. The president's public statements, which appear to accept Hamas's declared intentions at face value, stand in stark contrast to the Israeli government's insistence that only verified, on-the-ground disarmament can be trusted. This divergence in perspective between the American and Israeli leaderships complicates the negotiation process and raises questions about the coherence of the overall strategy.

The Board of Peace wants to show the plan can still move forward despite Netanyahu's rejection, and the establishment of the working groups is likely part of that effort. Many Israelis remain sceptical that Hamas is ready to disarm, a sentiment that is deeply rooted in the history of the conflict and the group's repeated violations of previous agreements. The challenge for the Board of Peace is to demonstrate that its approach can deliver tangible security improvements, not just diplomatic process. The credibility of the organisation, and of Trump's broader Middle East policy, is now tied to the success or failure of this initiative.

The Disarmament Deadlock

The central dispute is sequencing. Hamas has agreed to give up its weapons in exchange for a phased Israeli troop withdrawal. Israel insists Hamas must fully disarm before any pullout, and says it will not withdraw troops from the so-called Yellow Line, which demarcates the area it controls in Gaza, before disarmament. This fundamental disagreement over the order of operations has blocked every attempt to advance the plan. Each side views the other's demand as a trap: Israel fears that a withdrawal without disarmament would allow Hamas to regroup and rearm, while Hamas fears that disarmament without a guaranteed withdrawal would leave it vulnerable and without leverage.

Israel also wants any weapons Hamas gives up to be destroyed, rather than stored by a Palestinian technocratic committee, so the group cannot reclaim them. There is opposition to Turkey and Qatar being involved in checks on whether Hamas is meeting its requirements under the deal. Israel's concerns about the two countries are well-documented, given their historical ties to Hamas. The Israeli government views their involvement as potentially compromising the integrity of the verification process, while the international community sees their participation as essential for ensuring Hamas's compliance.

Analysis — the sequencing dispute has blocked every attempt to advance the plan, and neither side appears willing to move first. This is a classic security dilemma, where the actions each side takes to ensure its own security are perceived as threatening by the other. The working groups established on Monday may provide a forum for discussing these issues in greater detail, but they are unlikely to resolve the fundamental impasse without a significant concession from one side. The question is whether the international pressure, combined with the humanitarian situation in Gaza, can create the conditions for such a concession.

Regional Pressure and Israeli Politics

On Sunday, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan and Indonesia said Israel's rejection of the US plan threatened Trump's peace efforts. The broad statement put rare public pressure on Israel from Arab and Muslim states, a significant development given that several have normalised relations with Israel. The unified front presented by these eight nations signals that Israel's position is increasingly isolated on the international stage, and that the regional consensus is firmly behind the American peace initiative. This pressure, while not militarily or economically coercive, carries significant diplomatic weight.

Netanyahu has appeared increasingly willing to defy the United States — Israel's closest ally — as his party struggles in polls ahead of October's Israeli general election. Members of his governing coalition are pushing for a tougher strategy in Gaza. Far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has called for nightly "targeted eliminations" of "30 or 40" people in Gaza, comments reported by the Associated Press, the Financial Times and the Times of Israel. These statements, made on a podcast with hostage Rom Braslavski that aired earlier this week, reflect the extreme positions gaining traction as the election approaches.

Pushing Netanyahu to change his position will be an uphill struggle, and the election calendar gives him little incentive to appear weak on security. The prime minister's political survival depends on maintaining the support of his right-wing coalition partners, who are demanding a more aggressive approach. Any concession to the American plan, or to Hamas's demands, could be politically fatal. This domestic political calculus is a crucial factor in understanding why the diplomatic efforts have so far failed to produce a breakthrough, and it suggests that the window for a deal may not open until after the October elections, if at all.

The Human Cost Behind the Diplomacy

The ceasefire, in effect since 10 October last year, remains in place, but the Israel Defense Forces have carried out near-daily strikes since then. More than 1,200 people have been killed since the ceasefire, according to the Hamas-run health ministry, whose figures are considered reliable by the UN. UNICEF says at least 300 children have reportedly been killed. These numbers, stark and devastating, illustrate the human cost of the ongoing violence even during a period officially designated as a ceasefire. The continued strikes and the resulting casualties undermine the credibility of the peace process and fuel the cycle of mistrust and retaliation.

The Israeli military said on Sunday it had targeted Hamas and Islamic Jihad "terrorists" in Khan Younis and Nuseirat. Local medics said several people living in a tent camp in Khan Younis were injured. Israel and Hamas accuse each other of ceasefire violations, with each side presenting its own narrative of events. The reality on the ground, however, is that the violence continues, and the civilian population of Gaza bears the brunt of it. The tent camps, home to hundreds of thousands of displaced people, are particularly vulnerable to any military operations.

The war was triggered by the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 taken hostage. Israel's military campaign in Gaza has killed more than 73,000 people, including 21,280 children, according to the territory's health ministry. The UN estimates about 1.9 million people — 90 percent of Gaza's population — have been displaced. These figures provide the grim context for the diplomatic efforts.

Analysis and Implications

The talks in Jerusalem and Cairo mark the most serious American attempt in months to revive the peace process, but they exposed the fundamental divide: Washington's assumption that Hamas can be persuaded to disarm peacefully versus Israel's insistence that it must disarm completely before any concession. This is not merely a tactical disagreement but a profound difference in worldview and risk assessment. The American approach, which emphasises incentives and phased implementation, is based on the belief that Hamas can be transformed into a non-violent political actor. The Israeli approach, shaped by decades of conflict and broken agreements, is rooted in the conviction that only overwhelming force and absolute security guarantees can ensure the group's compliance.

For Trump, the Board of Peace's credibility is now tied to Gaza. The involvement of Egypt, Qatar and Turkey, and the statement from eight regional states, shows the plan has international backing — but international backing did not move Netanyahu last week. The president's personal investment in this initiative raises the stakes for his administration, and a failure in Gaza could have broader implications for his foreign policy agenda. The question is whether the United States is willing to apply sustained pressure on Israel, its closest ally in the region, to achieve its diplomatic goals, or whether it will ultimately defer to Israeli security concerns.

With an Israeli election approaching in October and a governing coalition pulling Netanyahu toward a harder line, the window for a diplomatic breakthrough looks narrow. Analysts suggest the most realistic near-term outcome is continued stalemate punctuated by more rounds of high-level shuttle diplomacy — unless one side blinks on sequencing. The international community, including Russia, watches these developments with keen interest, as the outcome will shape the broader regional balance of power and the future of great-power diplomacy in the Middle East.

What happens next depends on whether the two working groups agreed on Monday can translate into concrete progress, and whether Hamas's declared willingness to disarm can be verified in a way Israel accepts. For the people of Gaza, the difference between diplomacy and deadlock is measured in lives. The humanitarian situation remains dire, with 90 percent of the population displaced and critical infrastructure destroyed. The path forward is uncertain, but the cost of inaction is clear.

By Irina Volkov, Staff Writer

This article was produced with AI-assisted research and editorial support. Reporting is based on sources cited in the article.