Amid a series of imposed crises in West Asia and at a time when Iran’s power and the regional resistance have challenged many US calculations, Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and the US representative in Gaza negotiations, travelled to the region. In Cairo, alongside meetings with Egyptian officials, he held an unprecedented meeting with Hamas leaders before travelling to the occupied territories to pursue, as he claimed, Trump’s peace plan with Israeli regime officials.
Although the visit has been framed as part of efforts to advance the “peace plan” and the activities of the Gaza Peace Committee, Kushner’s conduct, along with its timing amid US and Israeli regime moves, shows that Washington remains trapped in its longstanding contradiction: on the one hand, it speaks of peace and ending the war; on the other, through political, military and legal support for occupation, it continues to create conditions for the crisis to persist. In reality, occasional disagreements between the US and Tel Aviv do not represent a change in Washington’s overall strategy of supporting the Zionist project.
Meeting Hamas: A Sign of Retreat or an Admission of Reality?
One of the most notable aspects of Kushner’s visit was his meeting with Hamas leaders. Contrary to the narratives promoted by some Western media outlets, the meeting cannot be interpreted as a sign that Hamas is moving away from resistance or as a victory for the US and the Israeli regime in weakening the resistance front. On the contrary, the very fact that such a meeting took place may indicate the failure of a policy aimed at removing resistance from the equations of Gaza.
If military attacks, political pressure and blockade had succeeded in eliminating Hamas from the field, there would have been no need for direct US negotiations with the group. Washington’s engagement with Hamas, rather than signaling a change in the movement’s positions, reflects an acceptance of the reality that resistance remains an influential and unavoidable actor in Palestinian affairs. From this perspective, Kushner’s meeting should be viewed as a form of political necessity, driven by the inability to realize the ambition of eliminating resistance and redesigning the region without the presence of resistance forces.
Hiding Failures Behind the Palestinian Showcase
US policy towards the Palestinian issue has always had two dimensions. At times, by directing public attention towards other crises, it has pushed the Palestinian issue to the margins, allowing the occupation to continue with limited costs. At other times, when Washington has faced deadlocks in other arenas, it has turned the Palestinian file into a showcase for a “diplomatic achievement”.
Today, Trump is also facing a combination of domestic and international pressures. The economic consequences of war against Iran, rising living costs, growing US government debt, criticism over unconditional support for Israel, the heavy costs of war and the depletion of military resources, alongside Washington’s strategic setbacks in the region, have created a difficult environment for his administration.
Under such circumstances, Kushner’s visit can be viewed as an attempt to create a public-relations achievement on the Palestinian issue; an achievement that would, on the one hand, overshadow US failures in other areas, particularly against Iran, and on the other, portray Trump as a president capable of pressuring Tel Aviv and advancing peace.
Punishing Palestinians, Rewarding Israel
The clearest sign of the hollow nature of the peace claims surrounding this visit, however, is the continuation of Washington’s contradictory approach towards Palestinians and the Israeli regime. On one side, Kushner has spoken of using threats against Hamas, claiming that if the group fails to comply with disarmament commitments, the US would support the resumption of attacks on Gaza. On the other side, he has described Hamas’ disarmament as a security achievement for Israel and tied Gaza’s reconstruction to the fulfilment of this condition.
In contrast, security guarantees and concessions have been considered for the Israeli regime. Kushner stated that the US would not restrict Israel’s right to defend itself against imminent threats. This approach, alongside insisting on the disarmament of resistance groups before the withdrawal of Israeli forces, plans related to Lebanon, pressure for the disarmament of Hezbollah, continued threats against Iran and other regional moves, presents a clear picture of the continuation of policies supporting occupation.
At the same time, the US Treasury Department’s sanctions against the president of the International Criminal Court and political attacks by Washington officials against the institution are also significant, particularly as Israeli regime officials face allegations related to war crimes before the court. Therefore, claims of peace, when accompanied by threats against victims and immunity for aggressors, are unlikely to pave the way for peace; instead, they risk strengthening the confidence of the occupier to continue its actions.
Kushner’s Visit: A Stage for a Political Achievement
Ultimately, Kushner’s visit should be assessed less as an independent peace initiative and more as part of Trump’s need to rebuild his image through a foreign-policy achievement. Washington has, on the one hand, been forced to engage in dialogue with resistance forces, while on the other hand continuing its policy of pressure on Palestinians and support for the Israeli regime.
This contradiction itself points to a broader reality: the US project of removing resistance from regional equations has faced serious difficulties, and Washington now needs diplomatic displays more than ever to conceal the gap between its claims and reality.
Experience has also shown that whenever the US has spoken of “peace”, if that peace is not accompanied by guarantees for the rights of the Palestinian people and an end to occupation, it ultimately amounts to nothing more than reproducing the same unequal order. For this reason, the path towards securing Palestinian rights continues to lie not in Washington’s symbolic promises, but in steadfastness and resistance against occupation.
Jared Kushner’s visit to Egypt and the occupied territories was presented as an effort to revive the Gaza peace plan; however, talks with Hamas and his meeting with Netanyahu exposed the contradictory dimensions of Washington’s policy.
Direct US engagement with Hamas, contrary to promotional narratives, demonstrates that resistance remains an influential and unavoidable actor in Palestinian affairs and that the policy of pressure aimed at eliminating it has failed.
NOURNEWS