Gaza: Trump dispatches Kushner, Netanyahu resists

American diplomacy is once again focused on Gaza, with Jared Kushner, an envoy and son-in-law of former U.S. President Donald Trump, meeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to advance a peace plan.

“

The paradox is striking; Hamas accepted, at the end of July, the American roadmap intended to open the second stage of the plan. This provides, in particular, for the disarmament of the movement and the withdrawal of occupying forces from the Palestinian territory.

The meeting aimed to move beyond declarations of principle to the difficult implementation phase. Paradoxically, Hamas accepted a U.S.-backed roadmap in late July, which includes the movement's disarmament and the withdrawal of occupying forces. However, Netanyahu has rejected this plan, demanding what he calls Hamas's "true" disarmament, leaving the meaning of "true" unclear.

This presents a dilemma for U.S. diplomacy: convincing its ally Israel without alienating Hamas, achieving Hamas's disarmament without making it seem like an imposed capitulation, and organizing a military withdrawal while ensuring Gaza cannot be used for attacks against Israel.

“

We would like to know what 'true' means.

Kushner, after meeting Hamas officials in Egypt, reportedly stressed the need for "verifiable" disarmament measures. Despite two days of meetings with leaders from both sides, no signs of imminent progress emerged, with both parties holding firm to their positions. The primary point of contention remains the disarmament of the Palestinian movement, a process that Washington and Israel reportedly agreed to entrust to a U.S. general.

“

Thus, American diplomacy is confronted with its own dilemma: Washington must convince its ally without losing Hamas, obtain the disarmament of the Palestinian movement without giving it the feeling of an imposed capitulation, and organize a withdrawal of the army while guaranteeing that Gaza can no longer serve as a base for attacks against the Zionist state.

The article suggests that disarming Hamas alone will not suffice for peace. Gaza is described as a devastated territory with a displaced population and a traumatized society. Without a legitimate authority to administer Gaza, rebuild infrastructure, and offer a political perspective, the vacuum left by disarmament could be filled by despair. The author critiques diplomacy focused solely on security, arguing that silencing weapons does not eliminate the conflict's causes, nor does neutralizing an organization erase the desperation that fuels its influence. Netanyahu's refusal is interpreted as a desire to preserve security interests, potentially delaying the need to address the more political question of a viable future for Palestinians.

“

Disarming Hamas will not be enough to build peace if the vacuum thus created is not immediately occupied by a legitimate authority, capable of administering Gaza, rebuilding its infrastructure, and giving its inhabitants a political perspective.