After revealing behind-the-scenes tensions on U.S. television, to Israel’s detriment, Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff have the chutzpah to come in Israel trying to salvage a Trump-brokered truce already strained by new clashes, delays in hostage returns, and Hamas non-compliance. The President and his men say that the war won’t resume even as the terror group makes clear that it won’t disarm.

Two of Donald Trump’s closest envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, landed in Israel on Monday amid escalating concerns that their televised grandstanding, evidently at the President’s behest, may have done as much to inflame tensions as to ease them. The pair arrived as part of an American effort to reinforce the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas—a truce they had helped to shape, but which now appears increasingly unraveling after new violence in Gaza and deepening diplomatic mistrust.

The storm began with their joint appearance on CBS’s 60 Minutes the previous evening. In a remarkably unguarded and provocative interview with Lesley Stahl, the two men recounted their role in brokering the Trump-mediated ceasefire and, in doing so, publicly criticized Israel’s conduct during the closing stages of the war, airing dirty laundry.

“I think both Jared and I felt—I just feel we felt a little bit betrayed,” Witkoff told Stahl, referring to Israel’s September 9 strike on Hamas operatives in Qatar. “We had people in the region working toward a framework, and suddenly Israel went and did something that looked like it could blow up the entire process.”

Kushner added that President Trump “thought Israel was getting a little out of control in what they were doing, and that it was time to be very strong and stop them from doing things that were not in their long-term interest.”

The implication—that Israel’s strike in Qatar endangered the negotiating team and undermined diplomatic progress—provoked outrage in Jerusalem. Israeli officials insist that the strike targeted senior Hamas planners operating abroad, including those directing rocket fire and hostage logistics. The operation was not coordinated with, nor directed at, the American mediation effort. Israel was not negotiating with Hamas. All communications were conducted through Egyptian and Qatari intermediaries.

In the Israeli view, the September 9 action was not a blunder but a catalyst for the eventual breakthrough. “It broke Hamas’ illusion of immunity,” one senior security official said privately. “Without that strike, they would not have come to the table.”

The envoys’ comments also confirmed that they had held what they called “back-channel exchanges” with Hamas representatives in Doha—an admission that startled Israeli observers and contradicted decades of American policy. Since the early 1990s, successive U.S. administrations have formally barred contact with Hamas, designated by both the United States and the European Union as a terrorist organization.

For Israel, the revelation that two private citizens, acting as Trump’s personal negotiators, had engaged Hamas directly was a bitter surprise. It raised questions about how much of the diplomacy leading to the truce had been conducted without Israeli oversight, and whether those contacts inadvertently conferred a degree of legitimacy on a group still sworn to Israel’s destruction.

The controversy erupted just as the truce itself showed signs of unraveling. On Sunday, two Israeli soldiers were killed and three wounded near Rafah when Palestinian militants opened fire on a patrol inside the “yellow line” buffer zone established by the ceasefire. Hamas denied responsibility, but Israeli intelligence believes the attackers were members of a smaller jihadist faction seeking to sabotage the agreement. The IDF retaliated with a wave of precision strikes on militant infrastructure—the most significant use of force since the truce began.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking after the incident, reaffirmed Israel’s right to defend itself. “Israel will uphold the ceasefire as long as it serves our security interests,” he said, “but we will respond forcefully to any attack from any source.” His words reflected the delicate balance he must maintain between honoring the Trump-brokered accord and preserving Israel’s operational freedom.

Trump, meanwhile, has made clear that he views the ceasefire as one of his major foreign-policy achievements. His envoys’ trip to Israel—followed by the expected arrival of Vice President J.D. Vance—was intended to demonstrate America’s continuing commitment to the deal and to reassure both sides that violations would not be tolerated. Yet the reality on the ground is far less stable.

Israel’s security establishment now faces an unenviable question: what happens if the attacks continue, especially from groups not formally under Hamas control? The ceasefire obligates Hamas to prevent such incidents, but enforcing that promise may prove impossible in Gaza’s fractured postwar landscape. Should more soldiers die, Israel will be pressed to retaliate—and doing so could place Jerusalem on a collision course with Trump’s White House.

That possibility is not theoretical. IDF commanders warn that rogue actors, local clans, and remnants of Islamic Jihad may all seek to provoke escalation. If Israel strikes back, Washington might view it as an overreaction; if Israel holds its fire, it risks projecting weakness. The “rogue faction problem,” as Israeli analysts now call it, could quickly become the undoing of the entire ceasefire.

Against this fraught backdrop, Kushner and Witkoff’s candid remarks landed like shrapnel. The public airing of private frustrations with Israel was viewed by officials as a serious breach of trust between allies. The notion that American envoys would describe Israel’s defensive strike as reckless—or imply that it endangered U.S. personnel—was received not only as inaccurate but as a betrayal of confidences shared in the course of sensitive diplomacy.

As one senior minister observed after the broadcast, the expectation between partners is discretion, not publicity. Netanyahu and his government, according to sources familiar with Monday’s discussions, intend to convey that message firmly. They are expected to make clear to the visiting Americans that such public rebukes, however unintended, subvert the mutual understanding that security actions like the Qatar strike were essential steps that helped make the ceasefire possible in the first place.

In private, senior Israeli officials have expressed respect for Kushner and Witkoff’s achievements but deep frustration with the tone of the interview. One aide said it created “the false impression that Israel was undermining peace, when in fact it was striking at terror leaders who made peace impossible.”

The visit, therefore, is as much about repairing diplomatic damage as about consolidating the ceasefire. The envoys’ schedule includes meetings with Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi, as well as briefings on hostage returns and ongoing disarmament efforts. The goal is to show alignment, close ranks, and prevent any public fissures that could be exploited by Hamas or its supporters abroad.

For Israel, the message is simple: discretion and unity are vital when lives are still on the line. For the American envoys, the task is harder—to persuade both Trump and Netanyahu that the deal remains salvageable despite its shaky start, and that the next phase of diplomacy can proceed without further missteps.

Whether their visit achieves that remains to be seen. The ceasefire stands for now, but it rests on the thinnest of foundations: mutual mistrust, asymmetric obligations, and an uneasy alliance of personalities. And behind the diplomatic smiles, there is quiet determination in Jerusalem to remind Washington that Israel’s security decisions are not open to reinterpretation on American television.

If the two envoys came to calm the waters, they will also leave with a message of their own to deliver back to Mar-a-Lago: that friendship with Israel carries an expectation of respect — and that confidences shared in wartime are not material for prime-time television.