NextFin News - Jared Kushner, senior advisor to US President Donald Trump, met Hamas leaders in Egypt on Sunday in his first direct talks with the group since the Gaza ceasefire was signed last October, pressing them to convert a disarmament commitment into specific, verifiable steps. The session in El-Alamein - attended by Board of Peace officials and Egyptian, Qatari and Turkish mediators - sets up Kushner's planned Monday meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has rejected a parallel plan requiring Israeli troop withdrawals to run alongside Hamas disarmament. The gap is no longer about the end state; it is about sequencing, and sequencing is where ceasefires die.
The Meeting and What Was on the Table
Kushner was accompanied by Board of Peace director general Nickolay Mladenov and executive committee member Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, according to people familiar with the talks. Hamas political leader Khalil al-Hayya sat across from them, alongside Egyptian intelligence chief Hassan Rashad, Qatari diplomat Ali al-Thawadi and a senior Turkish official. The objective was operational rather than symbolic: to turn Hamas' obligations on the demilitarization of Gaza into concrete measures that can be verified.
The steps under discussion map out the full architecture of the post-war order. They include transferring governing authority in Gaza to the Palestinian technocratic government, ensuring Hamas takes no part in the future governance of the territory, decommissioning Hamas weapons and military infrastructure, deploying an International Stabilization Force, and advancing reconstruction without theft or intimidation targeting Palestinians involved in the work. The board is also seeking corresponding Israeli withdrawals from parts of Gaza as Hamas begins disarming, plus an acceleration of humanitarian aid into the enclave.
"There can be no ambiguity: Hamas must relinquish governing authority and all weapons and military infrastructure," a person familiar with the talks said. "And Gaza can never again be a source of terror for Israel."
The meeting is the most concrete sign yet that Phase Two of the Trump administration's 20-point Gaza plan is moving from text toward implementation. On January 14, 2026, Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff announced the launch of the plan's second phase, shifting from ceasefire to demilitarization, technocratic governance and reconstruction. That phase established the transitional technocratic Palestinian administration - the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, or NCAG, headed by Ali Shaath - and committed the US-backed Board of Peace to oversee the disarmament process. Trump announced the board's formation on January 15, and the White House disclosed its composition the next day: Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Witkoff, Kushner, Blair, Turkey's foreign minister Hakan Fidan, Qatar's Ali al-Thawadi, Egypt's Hassan Rashad, UAE minister Reem Al Hashimy, Nickolay Mladenov and Israeli-Cypriot businessman Yakir Gabay. The framework carries diplomatic cover at the highest level: UN Security Council Resolution 2803, adopted in 2025, endorsed the comprehensive plan and welcomed the establishment of the board.
The political arithmetic is delicate, and both sides have already staked out positions that leave little room to move. Hamas said in late July that it was ready to hand over its weapons to the nascent technical committee set to govern Gaza, and reaffirmed that commitment after Netanyahu rejected the Board of Peace's 15-point plan earlier this month. Netanyahu specifically opposed the provision under which Hamas would gradually disarm, transferring its weapons to a Palestinian third party, while Israel concurrently withdraws its troops. He has vowed there will be no Israeli withdrawal until Hamas is fully disarmed - the mirror image of the sequence Hamas and the board are now negotiating.
"What is critical is that we both agree on the desired outcome and are finding ways to accelerate progress," a Board of Peace official said, adding that both the board and Israel "agree on the end state, which is a demilitarised Hamas."
Kushner also met Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi in El-Alamein, where discussions "emphasised the need for all parties to fulfill their obligations under the Gaza Strip ceasefire agreement," the Egyptian president's spokesperson said.
The Sequence Problem: Why Disarmament Deals Stall
This is a cyclical commitment problem, not a structural one - and that distinction matters. The obstacle is not a new disagreement over the end state; both sides now accept a demilitarized Hamas. It is a recurring trust deficit that has surfaced in every Gaza negotiation for two decades: each side fears moving first, so neither moves, and the window closes. Cyclical problems revert when the incentives change, which is exactly what the verification-and-reciprocity mechanism is designed to do. A structural problem - such as a fundamental rejection of the other side's right to exist - would not yield to sequencing at all. The evidence here points to the cyclical reading: the parties agree on the destination and are haggling over the route.
Both sides now say they accept the end state - a demilitarized Hamas and a Gaza that cannot threaten Israel. The dispute is over sequencing, and that is where ceasefires die. Hamas wants Israeli withdrawals to begin as it disarms; Israel wants full disarmament before it withdraws. Each side fears that moving first leaves it exposed: Hamas that it will be disarmed while Israeli forces still control the territory, Israel that withdrawal will leave a rearmed adversary on its border.
That is a classic commitment problem, and it is why the mediators are pushing for verifiable, reciprocal steps rather than a single handover. The mechanism on the table - an International Stabilization Force deployed to monitor decommissioning, a technocratic Palestinian authority taking over governance, and phased Israeli pullbacks tied to verified disarmament milestones - is designed to make each side's concession conditional on the other's. If verification holds, the sequence becomes self-enforcing. If it fails, the structure reverts to the old logic of pre-emption.
The context makes both sides cautious for reasons that go beyond negotiating tactics. The ceasefire took effect at noon on October 10, 2025, but fighting never fully stopped. Israel has carried out attacks on Gaza on 215 of the 239 days since then, according to a published analysis of news reports, and the Palestinian health ministry says at least 1,255 Palestinians have been killed in the territory since the truce began. The United Nations humanitarian office puts the figure for killings by Israeli forces in areas near the military's shifting lines of control at around 200 - part of more than 1,000 killed across Gaza in the same period. The cumulative Palestinian death toll in Gaza since the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on southern Israel stands at 73,389, according to Gaza health figures.
Territory is the other pressure point. Israel has gradually expanded its area of control to nearly 70 percent of the Gaza Strip, according to UN humanitarian data, entrenching facts on the ground that any withdrawal sequence would have to unwind. In the West Bank, the UN has documented 3,033 settler attacks between January 2025 and June 2026 - an average of about six a day - and Israeli forces and settlers have killed 76 Palestinians, including 18 children, in the occupied territory so far in 2026. A deal that stabilizes Gaza while the West Bank burns would be a partial victory at best.
The Board's Leverage - and Its Limits
The Board of Peace enters these talks with tools its predecessors lacked, and with constraints that no board can wish away. Its leverage is financial and diplomatic: it controls the gateway to reconstruction capital, it spans the regional mediators who host Hamas's political leadership, and it carries a UN Security Council resolution behind the framework. Its constraint is that it cannot force either party to move first - it can only make moving first less dangerous.
Witkoff's warning, delivered when Phase Two launched, frames the stakes in the board's own words:
"The U.S. expects Hamas to comply fully with its obligations, including the immediate return of the final deceased hostage. Failure to do so will bring serious consequences."
That threat only works if the consequences are credible, and credibility requires Israel to reciprocate. Kushner's Monday meeting in Jerusalem is therefore the real test: a source familiar with the talks said it will focus on the "corresponding steps" Israel would be required to take. Without those steps, the board is asking Hamas to disarm into a vacuum.
Kushner's own profile matters here. He led the economic portion of Trump's first-term "Peace to Prosperity" plan, and much of the Kushner-Witkoff team works in finance and the private sector. The design logic is familiar: move Gaza far enough along politically and security-wise that reconstruction finance can flow quickly, using capital as the carrot that makes the security stick palatable. The board's insistence that reconstruction proceed "without theft or intimidation targeting Palestinians" is not just humanitarian language - it is a governance condition that determines which contractors can bid, which capital will commit, and whether the pipeline ever reaches scale.
Market Channels: Risk Premium, Oil, and the Reconstruction Prize
For investors, the question is not whether the plan is right but whether it changes the risk premium embedded in Middle East assets. The exposure runs through three channels, and they point in opposite directions depending on whether the sequence holds.
Oil is the fastest channel. Any escalation that threatens the Strait of Hormuz or draws in Iran or its proxies puts a floor under crude prices; any credible de-escalation removes that floor and shifts attention back to demand and OPEC+ supply discipline. The asymmetry is well established: geopolitical oil spikes are fast and sharp, while the grind lower after a deal is slow and easily interrupted by a single strike.
Regional equities are the second channel. Israeli stocks, Gulf bourses and Egyptian assets have traded with a conflict discount for two years; a durable normalization would be a multiple-expansion story before it is an earnings story. Egypt, hosting the talks and mediating, has the most to gain from stability - and the most to lose from a collapse that brings refugee flows and Sinai security pressure back to the fore.
Reconstruction is the largest financial prize and the one with the clearest corporate beneficiaries. Rebuilding Gaza's housing, power, water, roads and ports is a multi-year, multi-billion-dollar pipeline that would flow through regional contractors, Turkish and Qatari firms, Emirati infrastructure funds and Western engineering groups. It is also the most politically fragile: capital will not commit at scale until the security sequence is verified, not promised. That makes reconstruction a lagging indicator of the deal's success - the money follows the milestones, it does not lead them.
The Counter-Thesis: This Is a Ceasefire, Not a Settlement
The strongest case against reading this meeting as a breakthrough is that nothing fundamental has changed. Hamas has agreed to disarm on paper before, and Israel has rejected every sequence that requires it to withdraw before disarmament is complete. The ceasefire that began in October 2025 has already seen more than 1,200 Palestinian deaths in Gaza, and the war has not ended - it has been capped. A meeting that produces a list of "verifiable steps" is not the same as verified steps, and the gap between a signed commitment and a handed-over weapon is where this process has failed before.
There is also a political constraint on the Israeli side that no amount of sequencing can easily dissolve. Netanyahu's coalition depends on parties that define any withdrawal before full disarmament as a security failure; accepting corresponding steps would carry a domestic cost that a Sunday meeting in Egypt cannot absorb. And on the Palestinian side, disarmament without a credible political horizon looks less like a transition and more like surrender - a framing Hamas's rivals will exploit.
The falsifying signal for the optimistic read is specific and near-term. If the International Stabilization Force is not deployed within the timetable the board sets, or if Israel does not begin a corresponding withdrawal from at least part of Gaza after the first verified disarmament milestone, then the sequence has failed and the regional risk premium returns. Conversely, if Hamas refuses to transfer governance authority to the technocratic committee after Israeli pullbacks begin, the board's core premise - that Hamas can be governed out of power rather than coerced out of it - is wrong.
What to Watch and the Scenarios
The next 72 hours matter more than the meeting itself. Kushner's Monday session with Netanyahu will reveal whether Israel is willing to discuss corresponding steps, or whether the gap on sequencing is unbridgeable. Investors and observers should watch for five signals:
- Whether the Board of Peace and Israel issue any joint language on sequencing after the Jerusalem meeting.
- Whether Hamas publicly commits to a date for transferring authority to the technocratic government.
- Whether the International Stabilization Force moves from planning to deployment.
- Crude prices, Gulf equities and Israeli risk assets as the market's read on escalation risk.
- Humanitarian aid flows into Gaza as a leading indicator of whether the deal's civilian provisions are functioning.
Three scenarios frame the path ahead. The base case is continued negotiation with episodic violence - a ceasefire that holds in name while both sides test the red lines, keeping the regional risk premium intact and reconstruction capital on the sidelines. The upside case is a verified first tranche of disarmament paired with an Israeli pullback from part of Gaza, which would unlock reconstruction finance, compress the regional risk premium and lift Gulf and Israeli risk assets. The downside case is a collapse of the sequence, a return to open fighting, and a wider regional escalation that lifts crude and hits risk assets across the Middle East.
Bottom Line
Kushner's meeting is a necessary step, but it is not a sufficient one. The gap between Hamas and Israel is no longer about whether Gaza should be demilitarized - both sides now say it should. It is about who moves first, and that is a harder problem than any agenda can solve. The market will price the process, not the principle: every verified step lower lifts risk assets and reconstruction names, and every stalled step puts the premium back.
Data as of August 16, 2026. Casualty and territorial-control figures are drawn from Gaza health authorities, UN humanitarian data and published ceasefire monitoring.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
