Something potentially historic happened in Egypt this week.
Hamas leaders met directly with Jared Kushner, the US Special Envoy for Peace, and reaffirmed their commitment to disarm and demilitarize Gaza. Kushner reportedly made clear that statements and promises would not be enough: Hamas must begin taking tangible steps to dismantle its weapons and military infrastructure, surrender governing authority to a Palestinian technocratic administration, and accept that it will have no armed role in Gaza’s future.
If implemented, this will not merely constitute progress in a diplomatic process. It could mark the beginning of the end of one of the darkest chapters in the history of Palestinians and Israelis.
For nearly three years, more than two million Palestinians in Gaza have endured death, displacement, hunger, destruction, and living conditions that no human being should experience. Israelis, meanwhile, have lived with the trauma of the massacres in Israel on October 7, 2023, the anguish of the hostage crisis, and the continuing threat of another war.
Demilitarizing Gaza offers both peoples a way out. For Palestinians, it would open the door to reconstruction, functioning government, economic recovery, and the restoration of ordinary life.
For Israelis, it would provide the security assurances necessary to begin withdrawing forces and turning away from permanent war. For the region, it would remove one of the principal sources of instability and create new space for cooperation, normalization, and peace. This is why Kushner’s meeting with Hamas was so important.
Diplomacy requires more than carefully written statements and meetings between people who already agree. It sometimes requires the courage to sit across from those whose actions we reject, speak with absolute clarity, and offer them a choice between continued destruction and a different future.
Kushner demonstrated that courage. His approach combined direct engagement with firm conditions. He reportedly told Hamas that disarmament was not open to negotiation and that Israel’s distrust could be overcome only through actions on the ground.
At the same time, he offered a reciprocal path: If Hamas begins disarming, the United States will work to ensure that Israel takes corresponding steps, including facilitating the deployment of an International Stabilization Force, accelerating humanitarian relief, enabling reconstruction in Rafah, and discussing initial troop withdrawals.
This is serious diplomacy. It recognizes that progress cannot be built on declarations alone, but also that demands must lead to a realistic political horizon.
Kushner is emerging as a Kissinger of the 21st century – not because the two men share the same worldview, but because Kushner understands that transformative diplomacy requires personal engagement, strategic patience, and the willingness to enter rooms others prefer to avoid. The reported outcome of this 90-minute meeting demonstrated both his courage and his considerable diplomatic ability.
I believe Hamas understands the decision now confronting it better than anyone.
Its military project has brought catastrophe to Gaza and has lost the ability to deliver anything resembling a political or national achievement. Attempting to preserve weapons as symbols of resistance at the expense of saving the lives and restoring the future of two million Palestinians would be morally indefensible and politically suicidal. Demilitarization is therefore not only an international demand. It is a Palestinian necessity.
Hamas began as a political and social movement and developed its military wing later. Giving up that military structure could become its rescue boat – allowing it to abandon armed activity and reconstitute itself as a purely political organization operating under one law, one legitimate authority, and one national political system.
This transformation also has direct implications for the Palestinian elections expected at the end of November. If Hamas verifiably disarms, accepts the authority of the future Palestinian government, and meets the legal requirements for participation – particularly recognition of the agreements signed between Israel and the PLO – I would support allowing it to compete in those elections. That should include international acceptance and an Israeli commitment not to obstruct its peaceful political participation.
Looking toward the future
As the head of Masar Jadid (New Path), a newly established Palestinian political party committed to democracy, accountable government, nonviolence, dialogue with Israel, and a politics that improves people’s daily lives, it might appear electorally convenient for me to wish that Hamas were excluded.
But that would be shortsighted. After Hamas disarms and transforms itself into a political party, Palestinians must be allowed to choose freely among all legitimate political alternatives. We need elections conducted on a level playing field – not elections engineered to guarantee a predetermined result.
Palestinians must be given, for the first time in a generation, the opportunity to test every political program at the ballot box: armed confrontation or peaceful influence; ideological slogans or practical government; isolation or engagement with the region and the world. The Palestinian people – not weapons, foreign powers, or unelected factions – must decide the future of Palestinian politics.
The same responsibility will soon confront Israeli voters. If the second phase begins before Israel’s elections on October 27, the next Israeli prime minister and government could take office with Hamas’s demilitarization already underway.
Rather than inheriting the seemingly impossible burden of beginning this process from zero, the new government would have the opportunity to move immediately toward security arrangements, reconstruction, regional cooperation, and a credible political horizon. It would be a fresh start, not only for a new Israeli government, but also for both peoples.
We should nevertheless remain clear-eyed. Hamas’s public statement after the meeting referred to a permanent ceasefire, Israeli withdrawal, humanitarian assistance, and reconstruction, but did not explicitly mention disarmament. The real test will therefore be implementation: weapons decommissioned, military infrastructure dismantled, governing authority transferred, and armed groups prevented from rebuilding.
Israel must then fulfill its corresponding obligations. Reciprocity does not mean moral equivalence. It means creating a process in which each verified step produces the next step, making compliance more rewarding than obstruction. This moment is larger than Hamas, Gaza, or any single diplomatic meeting.
Approximately 14 million Palestinians and Israelis share this land. Their futures cannot be separated, no matter how many walls, checkpoints, rockets, settlements, or political slogans are placed between them.
Kushner may have opened a door to a safer and more hopeful future for all of us. Walking through it will require courage from Palestinian and Israeli leaders – and, very soon, wise choices from Palestinian and Israeli voters.
In October and November, millions of people on both sides will have an opportunity to vote not merely for competing parties, but between two futures: another cycle of fear, bloodshed, and paralysis, or a new political era based on security, dignity, dialogue, and reconstruction.
We must vote for change. Thank you, Jared, for helping bring us to the threshold. Now it is our responsibility – Palestinians and Israelis alike – to cross it.
The writer is a Palestinian political leader from Jerusalem and the founder and head of Masar Jadid (New Path), a new Palestinian party committed to democracy, nonviolence, accountable government, dialogue with Israel, and improving the daily lives of Palestinians. He is a longtime advocate of a negotiated two-state solution and sustained engagement between Palestinians and Israelis.