Make No Mistake, Hamas Is Still the Spoiler in Gaza

National Interest  |  Ariel Cohen

Jared Kushner met with Hamas leader Khalil al-Hayya in Cairo to advance the Board of Peace’s 15-point roadmap for Gaza, demanding disarmament and governance transfer to the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza. Israel insists on full, verified disarmament before executing any military withdrawal, while foreign ministers from eight Muslim-majority nations blamed Israel for obstructing UN Security Council Resolution 2803.

This diplomatic deadlock directly intersects with domestic politics ahead of Israel’s October 27 elections and the Palestinian Authority’s scheduled November elections. Hamas continues to exploit structural delays, refusing to sign the Palestinian Liberation Organization's national program recognizing Israel. Consequently, the unresolved conflict complicates the broader American strategy against Iran, holding Saudi-Israeli normalization hostage and preventing regional alignment. Achieving long-term stability requires intrusive international verification through an International Stabilization Force rather than relying on unverified diplomatic assurances from Hamas leaders.

Comment

The friction between Washington and its Gulf partners over UN Security Council Resolution 2803 exposes the inherent limits of transaction-focused normalisation agreements. While the 2020 Abraham Accords sought to bypass the Palestinian issue to construct a joint anti-Iran security front, operational realities demonstrate that regional intelligence and defence integration cannot be decoupled from sub-state combat dynamics in Gaza. Arab signatories remain politically constrained by domestic public opinion, preventing the formalisation of shared air-defence networks against Iranian ballistic threats while tactical combat persists.

This deadlock directly restricts US Central Command's efforts to institutionalise multilateral maritime and air surveillance integration across the Red Sea and Arabian Peninsula. Without verified disarmament mechanisms managed by third-party bodies like the International Stabilization Force, regional capitals will continue to withhold explicit coalition participation, leaving the broader Middle East security architecture fragmented.

Strategic Question for Discussion

Which factor will weigh more heavily on the future stability of the Abraham Accords framework — the formal integration of an International Stabilization Force in Gaza, or the willingness of Gulf Arab partners to absorb regional political backlash without a finalised Palestinian statehood roadmap?

The available evidence points toward regional political exposure as the decisive factor overriding pure security integration. While multilateral deployments like an International Stabilization Force provide tactical buffer capacity, Gulf leadership remains inherently sensitive to domestic legitimacy risks. Consequently, deep defence integration will likely stall at informal intelligence-sharing arrangements until clear governance transitions occur in the Palestinian territories.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here