Can Trump Deliver Middle East Peace?

The meeting in Jerusalem between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s envoy, comes at a potentially decisive moment for the Gaza conflict. Kushner’s talks with Hamas representatives in Egypt, followed by his meeting with Netanyahu, suggest that Washington is trying to move beyond crisis management and toward implementation of Trump’s broader roadmap for Gaza.

From the perspective of a political scientist, the significance of these contacts lies less in the symbolism of the meetings than in the political mechanism Washington is attempting to build. The central problem is no longer simply how to negotiate a ceasefire. It is how to create a sequence of reciprocal steps in which neither Israel nor Hamas has to make the first irreversible concession without receiving a credible security or political benefit in return.

The current impasse illustrates precisely why this is so difficult. Hamas has indicated conditional willingness to move toward disarmament, while Israel insists that Hamas must be fully disarmed before an Israeli military withdrawal. The American proposal seeks to address this dilemma by linking the two processes: verified Hamas disarmament would take place alongside a phased Israeli withdrawal, while Gaza would gradually move toward civilian administration under a Palestinian technocratic structure.

This sequencing could provide the most realistic path toward de-escalation. Neither side currently trusts the other enough to act on faith. Israel fears that a withdrawal without genuine disarmament would allow Hamas or other armed groups to rebuild. Hamas, meanwhile, fears that surrendering its military capabilities before Israel withdraws would leave it without leverage and without guarantees that the conflict will actually end.

A credible monitoring mechanism involving the United States, Egypt, Qatar and other regional actors could therefore be more important than the political language of the agreement itself. The key is verification: each side must be able to see that the other is fulfilling its commitments before moving to the next stage.

There is another essential element: Gaza cannot remain in a political vacuum. A sustainable ceasefire requires a governing structure capable of delivering public services, coordinating reconstruction and maintaining security without becoming an instrument of either Hamas or an indefinite Israeli military administration.

The proposed transition toward Palestinian technocratic governance is therefore not a secondary issue. It is central to the question of whether a ceasefire can become a durable political arrangement.

The regional dimension may also work in Washington’s favor. Egypt, Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states have strong incentives to prevent Gaza from becoming the trigger for another regional escalation. Their involvement could provide political cover for difficult compromises while giving Hamas and the Palestinian side incentives to accept a new framework.

At the same time, Arab governments are unlikely to invest heavily in reconstruction or security arrangements unless they believe that Israel is genuinely moving toward a political settlement rather than simply pausing military operations.

This is where Trump’s role becomes crucial – and particularly complicated.

Trump possesses something that many previous American presidents lacked: a willingness to use personal political leverage and unconventional diplomacy simultaneously with economic and military pressure. His administration has also demonstrated a readiness to engage directly with actors that Washington has traditionally treated as unacceptable interlocutors.

But Trump’s ability to deliver a lasting peace will ultimately depend less on his ability to negotiate with Hamas than on his willingness to apply pressure to partners as well as adversaries.

The most difficult test will be Netanyahu. The Israeli prime minister has resisted elements of the American roadmap, particularly any arrangement that could require Israel to withdraw before Hamas has completely surrendered its military capabilities. Netanyahu is also operating under intense domestic political pressure.

This creates a fundamental dilemma for Trump. If Washington applies insufficient pressure to Israel, Hamas will have little reason to believe that Israeli withdrawal is guaranteed. If Washington applies excessive pressure, Trump risks a confrontation with an Israeli government that remains deeply concerned about the possibility of another major attack.

For this reason, the most plausible route to a breakthrough is not a single dramatic peace summit but a carefully calibrated process of reciprocal verification.

Hamas would need to demonstrate concrete and independently verifiable steps toward demilitarization. Israel, in parallel, would need to freeze or reduce military operations and begin a phased withdrawal tied to clearly defined security benchmarks. International monitors would then verify compliance at each stage.

Such a mechanism would transform the current dispute from a question of trust into a question of verification. That distinction is critical. Peace processes often fail when governments are asked to trust their opponents. They have a better chance of succeeding when governments are asked to comply with measurable obligations that can be independently monitored.

There is also a broader strategic opportunity. If Gaza can be stabilized, Washington could potentially use the resulting framework as the foundation for a wider regional arrangement involving Israel and Arab states.

The Abraham Accords demonstrated that Arab-Israeli normalization can advance even without resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The next stage could be different: regional normalization and economic integration could become incentives for progress on the Palestinian issue rather than substitutes for it.

Trump therefore may have a genuine opportunity to achieve something significant in the Middle East. But it is important to distinguish between ending a war and creating peace.

Trump may be capable of forcing the parties toward a ceasefire. He may even be capable of securing a phased agreement on withdrawal, disarmament and reconstruction. His greatest challenge will be ensuring that the resulting political order is sustainable once American pressure inevitably diminishes.

A durable peace would require three conditions: credible security guarantees for Israel, a viable political and administrative future for Palestinians, and sustained regional and international investment in Gaza’s reconstruction. None of these can be achieved through American pressure alone.

The Kushner-Netanyahu meeting is therefore best understood not as evidence that peace is imminent, but as a test of whether Trump’s negotiating model can overcome the central contradiction of the Gaza conflict.

Both sides want security, but each has defined its security in terms that appear to require the other side to concede first.

If Trump can change that equation – making Israeli security and Palestinian political progress mutually reinforcing rather than mutually exclusive – he could turn a fragile ceasefire into the beginning of a broader regional settlement.

If he cannot, the Middle East may once again demonstrate the limits of diplomacy built around personalities, pressure and short-term bargains.

The opportunity is real. Whether it becomes peace will depend on whether Washington can convert political leverage into institutions capable of surviving the next crisis.