A high-level American delegation met Hamas leader Khalil al-Hayya in Egypt on Sunday as the Trump administration tried to move its Gaza plan forward and narrow the gaps over Hamas’s disarmament, Israel’s withdrawal and the future governance of the territory.
Leading the American side was Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and one of the architects of his Middle East policy. Kushner helped broker the Abraham Accords during Trump’s first term and has returned to a central role in the administration’s Gaza diplomacy, working closely with US envoy Steve Witkoff on some of Washington’s most sensitive negotiations.
Kushner was joined by senior figures involved in planning Gaza’s postwar future, including former British prime minister Tony Blair and Board of Peace Director-General Nickolay Mladenov. According to Axios, Kushner told Hamas that statements about demilitarization were no longer enough and that Washington expected concrete, verifiable steps.
Hamas left the meeting saying it remained committed to the American framework while demanding that Israel fulfill its side of the agreement. Eight Arab and Muslim countries later criticized Israel over its rejection of the latest road map. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu maintains that Hamas must be fully disarmed and that Israel cannot withdraw while the terrorist organization retains the ability to rebuild its military power.
What stands out now is how routine the meeting itself has become.
In March 2025, the disclosure that US hostage envoy Adam Boehler had met Hamas officials directly caused an uproar in Jerusalem. Israel made clear to Washington that it objected. Ron Dermer, then one of Netanyahu’s closest ministers, reportedly confronted Boehler over the talks.
Boehler defended the contacts publicly. “We’re the United States. We’re not an agent of Israel,” he told CNN, arguing that Washington had interests of its own and that direct contact could help secure the hostages.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio soon described the initiative as a “one-off situation.”
Sharm el-Sheikh October meeting had clear purpose, result, bringing hostages home, establishing ceasefire
It didn’t stay that way. Last October, Kushner and Witkoff met Hamas leaders directly in Sharm el-Sheikh during the negotiations that produced the ceasefire and the release of the remaining living hostages. That meeting had a clear purpose and a clear result. The hostages came home, and some of those freed later thanked Kushner and Witkoff for their role.
Sunday’s meeting went further.
Kushner was discussing the terms under which Gaza will be rebuilt and governed, when Israel will withdraw, and how Hamas will disarm. Those are questions about Gaza’s political future, and Hamas now has a direct seat in those conversations with Washington.
The Israeli response has changed as well. There has been no public explosion comparable to the reaction to Boehler’s meetings. Jerusalem’s dispute with Washington now centers largely on the content and sequencing of the plan: whether Hamas will really disarm, how that will be verified, and when Israel will be expected to pull back.
Direct US-Hamas talks have become part of the process.
There are good reasons to use that channel if it delivers results. Israel should care about whether Hamas gives up its weapons, dismantles its military infrastructure, and relinquishes control of Gaza. The October talks showed that direct contact can help produce outcomes Israel wants.
Political effect of talks is important
The political effect is important. Hamas murdered 1,200 people on October 7 and dragged 251 hostages into Gaza. Israel went to war with the declared aim of destroying its military and governing capabilities. Yet Hayya is now sitting across the table from the people shaping Gaza’s future.
Hamas understands what that gives it. It can tell Palestinians and the wider Arab world that Washington still needs to hear its demands and still needs its agreement.
Kushner should keep the channel open as long as it produces concrete results. Those results should be easy to identify: weapons surrendered, tunnels destroyed, armed formations dismantled, and governing authority transferred to a body in which Hamas has no role.
This should be simple. If these meetings help remove Hamas from Gaza’s military and political future, they will have served a purpose. If Hamas emerges from the war weakened on the battlefield while securing a permanent place at Washington’s negotiating table, the process will have preserved something Israel went to war to eliminate.