The latest U.S. push for a Gaza settlement is testing whether diplomatic contact can resolve the conflict’s most difficult contradiction: a plan that requires Hamas to disarm, Israel to withdraw and a new Palestinian authority to govern.

Jared Kushner’s meetings with Hamas representatives and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu indicate that Washington is trying to move the framework from discussion toward implementation. But the sequence also exposes the gap between political engagement and enforceable guarantees.

According to the reported account, Kushner’s Aug. 17 meeting with Netanyahu centered on a 15-point roadmap backed by President Donald Trump. Its priorities included “dismantling the Hamas terrorist group’s military capabilities,” transferring civilian and security control to a new Palestinian administration, and establishing conditions for an Israeli withdrawal.¹ Those demands are connected: Israel is unlikely to leave without credible security assurances, while Hamas is unlikely to surrender its armed capacity without a clear political future and protection from renewed Israeli control.

The diplomacy itself is being presented as evidence of progress. One report described Kushner as sitting down with Netanyahu after a two-hour meeting with Hamas,² underscoring the unusual breadth of the contacts. Yet engagement does not mean agreement. Hamas’s participation may signal interest in the framework, but it does not establish that the group accepts disarmament or a transfer of authority.

Israel, meanwhile, has reportedly agreed to work with the Board of Peace on Gaza’s “demilitarization,”³ a formulation that emphasizes security over political reconciliation. That difference is central: Washington’s roadmap links disarmament to governance and withdrawal, while Israel’s stated position appears to treat demilitarization as the essential first step. Until the parties agree on who enforces that step—and what follows it—the plan remains a diplomatic outline rather than a settlement.