Gaza Peace Plan Stalemate: Collapse of Kushner-Netanyahu-Hamas Negotiations and US Response Strategy

Executive Summary

Despite Special Envoy Kushner's tour of Egypt and Israel, fundamental disagreements over the order of disarmament and withdrawal remain unresolved. The process concluded with a procedural achievement—the establishment of working groups—coexisting with substantive deadlock. Prime Minister Netanyahu has strong incentives to adhere to hardline principles due to his status as a defendant in corruption trials and the veto power wielded by Ben-Gvir and Smotrich within the coalition government. This situation creates structural friction with the Trump administration's pressure to implement its roadmap. While both sides found common ground on a plan for US military officers to verify disarmament, provisions for accountability in case of verification failure are absent. The most likely scenario involves a prolonged stalemate and partial, formal progress over the next several months. The US needs to recalibrate its policy objective from full roadmap implementation to securing manageability of the stalemate, supplementing the reliance on Kushner's channel by institutionalizing Egyptian and Qatari mediation and linking conditional financial and military aid.

I. Issue Situation Analysis

Gaza Peace Plan Stalemate: Collapse of Kushner-Netanyahu-Hamas Negotiations

1. Background and Course of the Issue

○ Following Hamas's surprise attack on October 7, 2023, Netanyahu likened Hamas to ISIS in a parliamentary speech, calling for a global counter-terrorism coalition [4].

○ This statement served as the basic framework for Israel's policy toward Gaza for the subsequent two years [2].

○ Netanyahu led the war while facing corruption charges [2]. — A structure where accountability is inevitable upon the war's conclusion.

○ National Security Minister Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Smotrich have exerted substantial influence on policy decisions within the coalition government [2][6].

○ Even after the establishment of a ceasefire in October 2025, the Israeli military continued airstrikes and territorial expansion within Gaza [1][9].

○ Hamas has continued its confrontation, refusing demands for disarmament [1][9].

○ The Trump administration presented a 15-point 'Board of Peace' roadmap [13].

○ Netanyahu publicly rejected the roadmap's sequence of withdrawal-disarmament [13]. — Assessed as an unprecedented public defiance of the Trump administration [13].

2. Current Situation

○ Special Envoy Kushner met with Hamas political leader Khalil al-Hayya for two hours in Egypt [15].

○ The following day, he held a four-hour meeting with Netanyahu in Jerusalem but failed to achieve a breakthrough [1][3][9][11].

○ Prime Minister Netanyahu's office described the meeting as a "deep and constructive discussion" [7].

○ Israel and the Board of Peace agreed to establish working groups to address disarmament and demilitarization [7].

○ An Israeli official stated that Netanyahu and Kushner had reached an understanding on a plan where Israeli forces would withdraw after a US general verified Hamas's disarmament [12][5][14].

○ Netanyahu reiterated his position that there would be no withdrawal from Gaza until Hamas's disarmament was complete [12][14].

○ Italy's ANSA reported that Trump had pressured Israel to "stop bombing Gaza" [16]. — Evidence of US discomfort with the continuation of Israeli military actions.

○ Spain's El Mundo characterized the Netanyahu-Kushner meeting as a decisive negotiation for entering the second phase of the roadmap [15].

3. Key Actors and Positions

Prime Minister Netanyahu ○ Adheres to the principle of prior confirmation of disarmament and subsequent withdrawal [12][14]. ○ Faces dual constraints: the potential defection of far-right coalition partners and ongoing corruption trials [2]. ○ Maintaining a hardline stance is a rational choice for his political survival amidst the dilemma of accepting the roadmap.

Far-right Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich ○ Consistently make hardline statements opposing withdrawal from Gaza and the continued presence of Hamas [2][6]. ○ Are targets of strong criticism from Arab nations. ○ Possess effective veto power, constraining Netanyahu's negotiating flexibility by threatening coalition collapse.

Hamas (Political leadership, including Khalil al-Hayya) ○ Maintains its existing stance, refusing demands for disarmament [1][9]. ○ Held separate talks with Kushner in Egypt, but no change in position has been confirmed [15][13].

Special Envoy Kushner (Trump Administration) ○ Mediated between both sides over two days, traveling between Egypt and Israel [1][3][9]. ○ Proposed a plan for US military officers to verify disarmament as a compromise [12][5]. ○ Trump separately demanded a halt to airstrikes on Israel [16].

Arab Nations ○ Have strongly criticized the remarks of far-right ministers like Ben-Gvir. ○ Interpreted as expressing concern that the credibility of the roadmap implementation is being undermined.

4. Summary of Key Issues

○ Sequencing Issue: Fundamental disagreement on whether disarmament or withdrawal comes first [1][9][12][14].

○ Verification Authority: The verification of Hamas disarmament by US military officers has emerged as a compromise, but specific implementation timelines and methods remain undecided [12][5].

○ Coalition Politics: Netanyahu's negotiating latitude is effectively restricted by his far-right coalition partners [2][6].

○ Continuation of Military Operations: Israeli airstrikes and territorial expansion have continued post-ceasefire, undermining the roadmap's credibility [1][9]. — Trump's demand for a halt to airstrikes corroborates this fissure [16].

○ Effectiveness of Working Group Agreement: While an agreement was reached to establish working groups on disarmament and demilitarization [7], the core issue of sequencing remains unresolved.

II. In-depth Issue Analysis

Gaza Peace Plan Stalemate: Collapse of Kushner-Netanyahu-Hamas Negotiations

In-depth Issue Analysis

1. Root Cause Analysis

○ The superficial issue in the current stalemate is the sequencing of disarmament and withdrawal [1][12].

○ However, the root cause is not the sequencing issue itself, but a lack of trust. — Israel perceives withdrawal without verified disarmament as a security suicide. — Hamas perceives disarmament without withdrawal as political annihilation.

○ Prime Minister Netanyahu's personal political calculations are a key variable in the negotiation's rigidity [2]. — Ending the war while facing corruption charges means facing accountability. — Maintaining a hardline stance is advantageous for his political survival.

○ The coalition structure itself imposes institutional constraints that reduce room for compromise [2][6]. — The defection of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich risks coalition collapse and early elections. — These two figures effectively exercise veto power in cabinet votes.

○ Hamas also considers disarmament the bottom line for its organizational survival [1][9]. - Possession of weapons is the source of its governing legitimacy and bargaining power within Gaza. - No change in its stance was confirmed in meetings with Egypt [15].

2. Structural Context

Political Structure

○ Israel's coalition government is a fragile majority structure dependent on far-right minority parties [2].

○ Netanyahu has already set an unprecedented precedent by publicly rejecting the roadmap [13]. - Public disagreement with the Trump administration was a rare pattern in past Likud governments.

○ The Arab world is strongly criticizing hardline remarks by figures like Ben-Gvir. - Increased domestic public opinion burden for normalization-pursuing countries such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE. - Neighboring countries like Egypt and Jordan are sensitive to delays in troop withdrawal due to concerns about refugee outflows.

Economic Structure

○ Funding for Gaza's reconstruction is designed to be contingent on financing from Gulf states. - If uncertainty regarding disarmament persists, the disbursement of Gulf funds itself will be delayed.

○ Within Israel, the financial and economic burden of long-term reserve mobilization is accumulating.

Security Structure

○ The US military general's plan for disarmament verification is a new form of intervention [12][14][5]. - The first operational model where the US directly intervenes as an observer. - Inherent potential for conflict between the US and Israel over responsibility in case of verification failure.

○ Israeli airstrikes and territorial expansion have continued even after the ceasefire [1][9]. - The gap between the ground agreement and actual military actions erodes negotiation trust.

3. Historical Precedents and Comparative Cases

○ During the implementation phase of the Oslo Accords, issues of sequencing also led to the collapse of negotiations. - Similar to the current situation, disagreements over the sequence of Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) disarmament demands and phased Israeli troop withdrawal delayed the agreement's implementation.

○ The demand for Hezbollah's disarmament after the 2006 Lebanon War also proved ineffective. - UN Security Council Resolution 1701 stipulated Hezbollah's disarmament, but it was not actually implemented [6]. - This suggests that the disarmament of armed groups is difficult to achieve through external coercion alone.

○ Attempts to disarm Shia militias in Iraq also ended in partial failure. - Full disarmament was not achieved even with the presence of US troops, leading instead to political organization.

○ These precedents commonly demonstrate the following: - Armed groups tend to maintain weapons as a last resort for political survival. - External interveners alone find it difficult to bridge the trust gap.

4. Key Variables Shaping Issue Development

○ The survival of Netanyahu's coalition government is the biggest variable. - If Ben-Gvir and Smotrich leave the coalition, the momentum for negotiations itself will be lost.

○ The design and speed of implementation of the US military general's verification system is the second variable [12][14]. - If verification criteria and schedules are ambiguous, both sides may employ delaying tactics.

○ The intensity of the Trump administration's pressure on Israel to exercise restraint in military operations is the third variable [16]. - Italian media reported that Trump demanded "a halt to airstrikes in Gaza" [16]. - Changes in the actual frequency of airstrikes will be an indicator of the temperature of US-Israel relations.

○ The level of pressure from normalizing Arab states is the fourth variable. - The key question is whether criticism of Ben-Gvir's remarks will translate into substantive diplomatic actions.

○ The concrete progress of the working group discussions is the fifth variable [7]. - Whether the working group on disarmament and demilitarization produces an actual timetable is the litmus test for entering the second phase of the roadmap.