Hamas and America: Have the rules of the game changed?

Dr. Amjad Abu Al-Ezz, Lecturer Specializing in International Relations at the Arab American University

In an unusual development, the statements exchanged between Hamas and the US administration have raised questions about the possibility of opening channels of dialogue between the two parties. The beginning came with the statement of Hamas leader Moussa Abu Marzouk, in a telephone interview with the New York Times, about the movement’s readiness to dialogue with the United States, and even its readiness to receive an envoy from the administration of US President Donald Trump in the Gaza Strip, providing him with protection if necessary. Abu Marzouk considered that such a dialogue could help Washington understand the feelings and aspirations of the Palestinians, which could lead to adopting a more balanced position that reflects the interests of all parties. From the American side, President Donald Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, welcomed these statements cautiously, saying: “I think it’s a good thing if it’s accurate,” referring to the possibility of exploring this step without a clear commitment. These statements come at a time when the region is witnessing intensive efforts to calm the situation in the Gaza Strip after the ceasefire agreement went into effect. Press reports have confirmed that the Trump administration has begun working on the second phase of the agreement, which includes a ceasefire and an exchange of hostages between Israel and Hamas. These developments raise questions about whether this rapprochement reflects part of a broader strategy for US policy in the Middle East, especially in light of the Trump administration’s focus on unconventional transformations such as normalizing relations between Israel and a number of Arab countries. Trump’s desire to build a legacy as a “peacemaker” may also be an additional incentive to explore new channels of communication even with parties such as Hamas, which Washington has classified as a terrorist organization since 1997. In the same context, Steve Witkoff announced that he will visit the region soon to participate in an international team working to monitor compliance with the ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip. In an interview with the American Fox News channel, Witkoff revealed that the inspection team will focus on sensitive points, including the “Netzarim” corridor that separates the north of the Strip from the south, and the Salah al-Din (Philadelphi) border axis between Gaza and Egypt. He stressed that these areas will witness the presence of international supervisors to ensure that no weapons or individuals with hostile intentions infiltrate, which represents the first public acknowledgment of US participation in the field in monitoring the agreement. The US envoy, who was present on the ground in the Gaza Strip, praised Qatar's pivotal role in mediation, and specifically mentioned the skills of Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani in communicating with Hamas, describing his efforts as "indispensable" in the success of the agreement. He considered that there is a "new sense of leadership in the region." He considered Qatar a model for countries that can play a greater role in enhancing regional stability. Here, the most prominent questions are: Will Qatar's entry into the normalization process be followed by the provision of a path to contain Hamas in the regional deals that are being prepared now? Will Qatar stipulate recognition of the Palestinian state as a condition for Qatari-Israeli normalization? Will Hamas agree to join the new club? What will Hamas offer in return? What concessions will it make? What about the PLO? Why did Hamas resort to dialogue with the United States before dialogue with the PLO, which is the organization I mean the legitimate representative of the Palestinians?

Despite this initial openness, any potential dialogue between the two sides faces significant obstacles. The US designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization constitutes a legal and political barrier to any official communication, in addition to regional sensitivities that may see this rapprochement as a threat to their interests or policies towards the Palestinian cause. In addition, the position of Israel, the main US ally in the region, may oppose any dialogue between Washington and Hamas. For its part, Hamas may seek to improve its international image by demonstrating openness to dialogue, in an attempt to ease regional and international pressure on it. The involvement of regional parties, such as Turkey, may also contribute to playing the role of mediator to push this initiative forward. The main question remains whether these statements represent an actual beginning to open direct or indirect channels of communication between Hamas and Washington, or are they merely tactical maneuvers by both sides? At present, it seems that US interest is limited to achieving interim progress regarding a ceasefire and ensuring stability, without a clear commitment to broader steps. What is happening may reflect a limited shift or a political maneuver with interim goals. However, achieving tangible progress requires overcoming political and legal obstacles, and providing international support and regional guarantees in which Turkey or other parties may play an important role. In the same context, US President Donald Trump’s statements about the opportunities for rebuilding the Gaza Strip, and his emphasis that Gaza has great potential, beautiful weather, and promising investment opportunities, raise many questions about the nature of the expected US role in the Strip. These statements seem to present an economic vision rather than a political one, which opens the door to questions about whether the Trump administration is dealing with the Palestinian issue, including the conflict in Gaza, from a purely real estate investment perspective, far from the political and humanitarian dimensions. Trump’s approach in talking about Gaza as an investment area reflects his personal style that distinguished him as a businessman and real estate developer before entering the world of politics. This vision may reflect a desire to use economic stimulus as a tool to achieve stability and calm the situation in the Strip, and is part of a broader approach adopted during the “Deal of the Century” plan, which focused on improving economic conditions as an alternative to traditional political solutions.

However, this “economic” view of the conflict may face significant obstacles. The conflict in Gaza is not simply a development or investment issue, but a complex political conflict linked to the Israeli occupation, the blockade of the Strip, and Palestinian rights. Ignoring the political and root dimensions of the crisis and focusing only on reconstruction and investment projects may lead to superficial solutions that do not address the essence of the issue. On the other hand, Trump’s statements may be an attempt to present a new approach to dealing with Gaza, inspired by his business experience. However, this approach may face resistance from regional and international parties that see the Palestinian issue as an issue with political and historical dimensions that cannot be reduced to a mere economic opportunity.

If this approach reflects Trump’s vision of the conflict, it could be seen as an attempt to change the rules of the game by focusing on economic interests rather than seeking just political solutions. The challenges facing any American investment role in Gaza will be significant, especially in light of the ongoing Israeli blockade and internal Palestinian division.

It remains that these statements, despite their economic nature, may indicate an American strategy that seeks to normalize or “commodify” the conflict, by presenting Gaza as an investment opportunity rather than a political issue. However, it remains unclear whether this vision is capable of achieving tangible results on the ground, or whether it is just another reflection of Trump’s approach that mixes politics and the business world. In my opinion, without a unified Palestinian vision and plan now, we will become part of the plans of others that will be imposed on us.

The next four years are full of surprises for Trump and his team, so tighten your belt.