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

Executive Summary

Kushner's shuttle diplomacy in August resulted only in the procedural progress of establishing a working group for verification of disarmament. The fundamental disagreement between Israel and Hamas over the sequence of disarmament and withdrawal remained unresolved. Netanyahu's negotiating discretion is constrained by the threat of ICC indictment and corruption trials, as well as the veto power of far-right coalition partners like Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, framing the issue as one of political survival rather than negotiation tactics. The most probable scenario is a prolonged stalemate (55%), necessitating a strategy to manage the stalemate safely by codifying the US verification mechanism and providing incentives to Hamas through Arab intermediaries, rather than aiming for a complete resolution. The US should leverage military aid conditionality against the Israeli far-right coalition, while countering extremist ministerial remarks with joint statements with Arab nations to avoid framing it as anti-American sentiment. The Red Sea shipping lanes and energy markets are expected to experience persistent high volatility without sharp fluctuations, and while corporate projects in the Middle East may be delayed, a complete halt is unlikely.

I. Issue Analysis

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

1. Background and Course of the Issue

○ Israel-Hamas war broke out following Hamas's surprise attack on October 7, 2023.

- Prime Minister Netanyahu likened Hamas to ISIS in a parliamentary speech at the time. - He called for the formation of an international coalition, stating, "just as the international community responded to ISIS and Al-Qaeda after 9/11" [4].

○ Netanyahu's political interests were intertwined with the war's objectives from the outset.

- Netanyahu had already been indicted on corruption charges prior to the outbreak of the war [2]. - Once the war ends, he is inevitably exposed to accountability [2].

○ Israeli forces continued airstrikes and territorial occupation in Gaza even after the ceasefire on October 2026 [1][9][11].

○ The Trump administration pursued a 15-point roadmap for Hamas disarmament [13].

- Netanyahu publicly rejected this roadmap last week, an unusual act of defiance against the Trump administration [13].

○ EAI's previous analysis characterized this as "a structural issue intertwined with the Israeli coalition structure and Netanyahu's personal political survival, rather than a negotiating tactic" [2].

2. Current Situation

○ Special Envoy Kushner conducted shuttle diplomacy for two days on August 16-17 (local time).

- On the 16th, he met with Hamas political leader Khalil al-Hajja for two hours in Egypt [15]. - On the 17th, he held a four-hour meeting with Netanyahu in Jerusalem [15][7].

○ The meetings yielded no apparent breakthrough but resulted in a partial procedural agreement.

- The Netanyahu side agreed to a plan where a US general would verify Hamas's disarmament [12][14]. - The Israeli military reaffirmed its policy of maintaining its presence in Gaza until disarmament is complete [12][14]. - Israel and the Board of Peace agreed to establish two working groups: one for disarmament and one for demilitarization [7].

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

○ However, Hamas maintained its existing position, refusing disarmament itself [1][9][11].

- Both sides remain in a stalemate, unwilling to concede on their core demands [1][9][11].

○ President Trump publicly called for restraint in further airstrikes on Gaza [16].

- This reflects a concern that Israeli airstrikes and territorial expansion are inconsistent with the ceasefire objectives [1][9].

3. Key Actors and Positions

○ Prime Minister Netanyahu (Israel)

- Insists on the sequence of "withdrawal after verification of Hamas disarmament" [12][14]. - His primary concern is political survival, given the ICC indictment for corruption [14]. - Risks government collapse if far-right coalition partners like Ben-Gvir and Smotrich withdraw [2][6].

○ Far-right ministers, including National Security Minister Ben-Gvir

- Maintain a hardline stance opposing withdrawal from Gaza and the continued existence of Hamas [2][6]. - Recent hardline remarks have provoked strong backlash from Arab nations.

○ Special Envoy Kushner (United States)

- Trump's son-in-law and a key architect of the 15-point roadmap [15]. - Pressuring both Israel and Hamas through shuttle diplomacy to implement the second phase of the roadmap [15]. - Attempting to persuade Netanyahu with a compromise of US military verification of disarmament [12][14].

○ Hamas Political Leadership (Khalil al-Hajja, etc.)

- Maintain their position of refusing to consider disarmament as a negotiable issue [1][9][11]. - Only maintain negotiation channels through Egypt, avoiding direct face-to-face talks [15][13].

○ Egypt and the Board of Peace

- Continue to serve as intermediaries for indirect negotiations between Hamas and the US [15][13]. - Agreed with Israel to form working groups for disarmament and demilitarization [7].

4. Key Issues

○ Fundamental disagreement over the sequence of withdrawal and disarmament.

- Israel: Disarmament completion is a prerequisite for withdrawal [12][14]. - Hamas: Rejects disarmament as a negotiable issue [1][9][11].

○ Compromise regarding the verification body.

- Israel has tentatively agreed to verification by a US general [12][14]. - However, Hamas's acceptance remains unconfirmed.

○ Netanyahu's domestic political constraints fundamentally limit negotiating flexibility.

- Risk of early elections if far-right coalition partners withdraw [2][6]. - Personal factor of corruption trials delays the overall peace negotiations [2][14].

○ Hardline rhetoric from far-right ministers strains relations with Arab mediators.

- Potential erosion of trust with mediators like Egypt. - Negative impact on securing regional legitimacy for the roadmap.

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 collapsed negotiations is the sequence: "disarmament first, then withdrawal" versus "simultaneous implementation."

- Netanyahu insists on withdrawal after Hamas completes disarmament, verified by a US general [12][14]. - Hamas does not recognize disarmament itself as a subject for negotiation [1][9][11].

○ Beneath the superficial issues lies Netanyahu's personal calculus for political survival.

- Netanyahu faces an ICC indictment and is a defendant in domestic corruption trials [2][14]. - "Netanyahu's rejection of the withdrawal-disarmament sequence in the Trump administration's Gaza peace roadmap is not a negotiating tactic but a structural issue intertwined with the Israeli coalition structure and Netanyahu's personal political survival" [2]. - The end of the war and withdrawal would lead to accountability [2].

○ The veto power of far-right coalition partners restricts negotiating discretion itself.

- Ben-Gvir and Smotrich fundamentally oppose withdrawal from Gaza and Hamas's continued existence [2][6]. - The coalition could collapse and lead to early elections if these two figures withdraw [2]. - For Netanyahu, securing negotiating flexibility directly equates to the risk of losing power.

○ Hamas also lacks significant incentive to accept disarmament.

- Its armed capacity is Hamas's core asset for maintaining its political presence in Gaza. - Disarmament would mean the loss of the organization's bargaining power and justification for rule.

2. Structural Context

Political Structure

○ The Israeli coalition government's structure makes it impossible to maintain a majority without far-right minor parties.

- The government could collapse with just the withdrawal of votes from Ben-Gvir and Smotrich's parties. - Netanyahu's negotiating leverage is effectively held hostage by his far-right coalition partners[2][6].

○ Unprecedented friction exposed between the Trump administration and Netanyahu within the U.S.

- Netanyahu publicly defied the U.S. by stating, "I publicly rejected this roadmap last week"[13]. - This deviates from the usual practice where Israeli prime ministers did not publicly oppose U.S. Middle East initiatives.

Security Structure

○ A dual structure where Israeli military airstrikes and territorial occupation continue even after a ceasefire.

- Although nominally a ceasefire, military operations are effectively ongoing[1][9][11]. - This is the background for President Trump's direct request to "refrain from further airstrikes on Gaza"[16].

○ Emergence of a new security architecture involving U.S. military generals as verifiers of disarmament.

- Provisional agreement reached for a third-party (U.S. military) verification method, rather than self-verification by the Israeli military[12][14]. - This structure involves the U.S. directly bridging the lack of bilateral trust between Israel and Hamas.

Economic and Regional Structure

○ Arab countries' backlash is burdening the entire U.S. regional initiative.

- Strong remarks from far-right ministers like Ben-Gvir have triggered severe criticism from Arab nations. - The ability to secure trust from participants in the Board of Peace will be a variable for the roadmap's sustainability.

3. Comparison with Historical Precedents and Similar Cases

○ Structural similarities with UN Security Council Resolution 1701 (demanding Hezbollah's withdrawal) in 2006.

- At that time, Israel also demanded the disarmament and withdrawal of armed forces as a prerequisite[6]. - The current demand for Hamas's disarmament repeats the same "disarmament first" logical structure.

○ Aligns with the sequence disputes during the implementation of the Oslo Accords.

- Mutual distrust over the sequence of security measures by the Palestinian side and troop withdrawal by Israel has been a recurring pattern since the Oslo Accords. - In this case, mutual demands for prior implementation are functioning as a key mechanism for negotiation deadlock.

○ Netanyahu's public defiance of the U.S. is an unprecedented event.

- Netanyahu's public rejection of the roadmap last week is recorded as an "unprecedented defiance of the White House's policy"[13]. - This contrasts with the usual practice where Israeli prime ministers have coordinated disagreements through informal channels rather than publicly opposing U.S. mediation proposals.

4. Key Variables Shaping the Issue's Development

○ Whether the specific design of the U.S. military general verification system is finalized.

- If the scope, timeline, and decision-making authority of verification are not clearly defined, re-deadlock is possible. - The effective operation of the disarmament working group under the Israeli military and the Peace Committee will be a litmus test[7].

○ Trends in the intensity of Israeli airstrikes.

- Whether Israel actually accepts Trump's request to refrain from airstrikes[16]. - If airstrikes continue, the effectiveness of the ceasefire itself will be undermined.

○ Whether the far-right coalition partners will defect.

- Whether Ben-Gvir and Smotrich will actually use the threat of leaving the coalition will determine the scope for negotiation. - If the situation moves towards early general elections, Netanyahu's negotiating leverage will be effectively blocked.

○ Whether Arab countries will continue to participate in the Peace Committee.

- Whether the backlash against far-right ministers' remarks leads to actual withdrawal of participation will determine the roadmap's international legitimacy.

○ Hamas's bottom line for accepting disarmament.

- Whether a compromise like "hiding and storing weapons" instead of complete disarmament is accepted will be the key to the next phase. - The difference in policy between the hardliners and moderates within Hamas will be a variable determining the speed of future negotiations.