The statements of Musa Abu Marzouk, deputy head of Hamas's political bureau abroad, indicating the movement's readiness to communicate directly with Washington, raised many questions about the seriousness of this step and whether it represents a strategic shift in Hamas's policy, or is merely an attempt to improve its international image in the post-war period on the Gaza Strip.

In separate interviews with “I,” writers, political analysts, specialists, and university professors believe that Abu Marzouk’s statements may reflect Hamas’ desire to seek legal legitimacy and international recognition, especially in light of its de facto control over many aspects of life in Gaza. They also believe that this step may come within the framework of a new American policy under the leadership of President Donald Trump, who seeks to leave a legacy as a peacemaker.

However, they point out that the challenges are great for both sides. On the one hand, Hamas faces legal challenges because it is on the US terrorist list, in addition to fundamental issues, such as: recognizing Israel, renouncing violence and surrendering weapons. On the other hand, the US administration needs Congressional approval for any steps related to opening a dialogue with Hamas. These obstacles make it difficult to predict the success of any future dialogue, in addition to the existence of internal Palestinian divisions and the lack of a national consensus on how to deal with these developments.

Hamas's desire to seek legal legitimacy and international recognition

The writer, political analyst and professor of international relations at the Arab American University, Dr. Amjad Abu Al-Ezz, believes that the readiness of the Hamas movement to open a dialogue with the United States reflects the movement’s desire to seek legal legitimacy and international recognition, especially in light of its actual control over many aspects of life in the Gaza Strip.

Abu Al-Ezz explains that this step comes within the framework of a new era of American policy under the leadership of former President Donald Trump, who seeks to leave a legacy as a peacemaker.

Abu Al-Ezz points out that the United States has begun taking practical steps on the ground by sending security companies consisting of army forces and retired officers to the checkpoints in Netzarim, which indicates the need for understandings or preliminary agreements between the two parties that necessitate opening a dialogue.

Abu al-Ezz believes that Hamas wants to open lines of communication with the United States in search of legal legitimacy, and it may be part of a regional deal through which the movement is contained through certain understandings, such as avoiding war with Israel in exchange for allowing its representatives to participate in a government or some kind of agreement.

Abu Al-Ezz points out that Trump wants to deal with players on the ground, which opens the door to the possibility of opening a direct line between Hamas and the United States in the next phase, whether through tactical initiatives to strengthen the truce and release prisoners, or as part of a broader strategy to deal with the Middle East region.

Abu Al-Ezz points out that the challenges are great for both parties. On the one hand, Hamas faces legal challenges because it is on the US terrorism list, in addition to major issues, such as recognizing Israel, renouncing violence, and handing over weapons, which are issues that Hamas cannot easily make decisions on. On the other hand, Trump needs Congressional approval for any steps related to opening a dialogue with Hamas.

Abu Al-Ezz explains that the experience of dialogue with the United States is not new for the Palestinians, as the PLO began dialogue with Washington in the seventies, but this dialogue stopped because of Yasser Arafat’s refusal to condemn some Palestinian operations, pointing out that the Hamas movement is supposed to learn from the organization’s experience, but it faces major challenges in achieving a balance between its Palestinian project and its regional projects.

Abu Al-Ezz believes that Hamas must open a dialogue with the PLO to achieve consensus on all points, including resistance and relations with Israel and neighboring countries, instead of searching for channels with the United States of America.

Abu Al-Ezz stresses that any dialogue with the United States must be supported by a unified Palestinian legal umbrella, to avoid tactical maneuvers that could weaken the Palestinians in the long run.

Abu Al-Ezz calls for opening a comprehensive national dialogue to implement national unity on the ground, to block any plans and programs that may not be in line with the aspirations of the Palestinians and their legitimate political rights.

Abu Al-Ezz believes that President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) can play a pivotal role at this stage by proposing an initiative for national dialogue that includes everyone, including Hamas, which pulls the rug out from under any dialogue channels that are not in line with the national consensus.

Abu Al-Ezz warns that rebuilding Gaza from a purely economic perspective may ignore the political and fundamental dimensions of the Palestinian issue, which raises questions about the extent to which this dialogue can meet the legitimate rights of the Palestinians without falling into any political trap.

Hamas was in great confusion regarding Witkoff's visit

Writer and political analyst Akram Atallah believes that Hamas was in great confusion regarding the visit of Steven Witkoff, the US special envoy to President Donald Trump, to the Gaza Strip. Hamas believed that Witkoff would visit Gaza at the head of an independent US delegation through the Rafah or Beit Hanoun crossings, without realizing that the visit would take place under Israeli security and administrative cover, and that Israel would be the one organizing this visit.

Atallah points out that this ambiguity prompted Hamas to announce its readiness to provide protection for the American delegation, a statement followed by another statement by Musa Abu Marzouk in which he confirmed the movement’s readiness to open a dialogue with the United States of America. These statements were based on a false assumption.

Atallah does not believe that the United States of America will open a dialogue with Hamas, for several reasons, including the firm American decision to end the movement’s rule in Gaza, which is consistent with the Israeli position.

Atallah points to tweets issued by US President Donald Trump and the US National Security Advisor, which stressed that “there is no place for armed organizations in Gaza,” and called for “separating Gaza from them and rebuilding it.”

These statements, according to Atallah, reflect a convergence in the American and Israeli vision regarding the necessity of ending Hamas' role as an armed resistance movement.

Atallah asserts that Hamas will face great difficulties even if the United States opens a dialogue with it, because the American conditions will contradict the nature and composition of the movement. It is expected that Washington will demand that Hamas give up its weapons and recognize Israel, conditions that contradict the functional role of Hamas as an Islamic resistance movement.

Atallah explains that "Hamas was established to resist the occupation, and if the United States strips it of its weapons, it will deprive it of its basic justification for existence."

Atallah points out that Hamas' recent statements about its readiness to dialogue with the United States came as a result of a false assumption, as the movement believed that the American envoy would arrive in Gaza through the Egyptian Rafah crossing, without realizing that the visit would take place under the guise of the Israeli occupation.

Atallah believes that Hamas faces a major dilemma, as any dialogue with the United States will require it to make fundamental concessions that contradict its basic principles. At the same time, the movement’s continued international isolation may increase its internal and external pressures, putting it in an existential predicament that is difficult to get out of without radical changes in its policy and strategy.

A deep political position stemming from Hamas's awareness of the magnitude of the crisis

Writer and political analyst Dr. Ahmed Rafiq Awad believes that Musa Abu Marzouk’s statements, which indicated the movement’s desire to open new channels of communication with the current US administration, are not merely a diplomatic compliment, but rather reflect a deep political position stemming from Hamas’s awareness of the magnitude of the crisis it faces.

Awad points out that after the catastrophic destruction that befell the Gaza Strip, and the tight military and political siege, Hamas feels that it is in an existential dilemma. This dilemma is not limited to the military or material aspect only, but extends to the political aspect, as Hamas feels that there are international and regional efforts aimed at “erasing” it from the political equation.

Awad points out that Hamas may be willing to adopt new policies, perhaps including becoming a fully political movement, or even relinquishing control of the Gaza Strip as part of a broader political settlement. These steps may be aimed at opening closed doors with the US administration and seeking new partners in the region, including the Palestinian Authority, in order to achieve Palestinian reconciliation that allows for deeper dialogue with the international community.

Dr. Awad raises fundamental questions about the future of Hamas: Can the movement transform into a purely political entity? Can it recognize Israel as part of a political settlement? Will it accept Arab or international administration of the Gaza Strip? These questions reflect the major challenges facing Hamas, especially in light of the enormous pressures it is under.

Awad believes that Hamas may deal with multiple scenarios that preserve its political and military existence, but he rules out that the movement will offer any reward to Israel, such as recognition, after the destruction that befell Gaza. However, Hamas may be prepared to deal with Arab and American proposals aimed at achieving long-term calm, or even participate in security and political arrangements that guarantee relative stability in Gaza.

Awad points out that one of the major challenges facing Hamas is how to build trust with the international and regional community. Even if the movement offers guarantees regarding its political intentions, it is difficult to believe them in light of its complex military and political history. Moreover, handing over weapons, which is one of the main international demands, may make Hamas very weak and unable to impose its conditions in any future negotiations.

Awad believes that Hamas may resort to dramatic options, including entering into a secret or public dialogue with the US administration, in order to preserve its political and military presence in the Gaza Strip. This dialogue may include painful settlements, but they may be necessary to ensure the movement’s survival under the current circumstances.

Awad points out that this trend may also be driven by current US policy, especially with the return of President Donald Trump to the political forefront. Trump, who is known for his quick deals and firmness, may represent an opportunity for Hamas to achieve quick political and security arrangements in the Gaza Strip.

But Awad warns that any separate dialogue between Hamas and the United States could negatively affect the unified strategic vision of the Palestinians, and weaken the idea of an independent Palestinian state. This dialogue could also create new divisions within the Palestinian political scene, complicating national reconciliation efforts.

Awad believes that Hamas stands at a crossroads, where it must balance between preserving its principles and gaining new international legitimacy, and this delicate balance may be the key to the movement’s survival in light of the changing political circumstances in the region and the world.

A qualitative development in political dynamics

Professor Dr. Jamal Harfoush, Professor of Scientific Research Methods and Political Studies at the University of the Academic Research Center in Brazil, points out that the statements of Musa Abu Marzouk, Deputy Head of the Political Bureau of the Hamas Movement Abroad, regarding the movement’s readiness to open a dialogue with the United States and provide protection for US President Donald Trump’s envoy, constitute a qualitative development in Palestinian and international political dynamics.

Harfoush explains that this step may open new horizons for different diplomatic paths, which may involve reshaping the relationship between the United States and Palestinian political movements.

Harfoush asserts that this initiative is considered an attempt by Hamas to expand the circle of international actors involved in the Palestinian cause, which may contribute to breaking the current stalemate.

Harfoush asserts that this development is an indication of a new flexibility adopted by Hamas, especially in light of the urgent need to improve the humanitarian and economic conditions in the Gaza Strip. This step may also reflect Hamas’ desire to present itself as an effective and responsible party capable of communicating with influential international parties.

In practical terms, Harfoush points out that the success of these tracks depends on the United States’ response to this offer, and its willingness to reconsider its traditional policies towards Hamas, as this step may constitute a gateway to rearranging the cards on the Palestinian scene if it is exploited wisely and knowledgeably.

Harfoush explains that Hamas, as a resistance movement, has its own political and military approach. Since its inception, it has adopted a position different from that of the Palestine Liberation Organization regarding recognition of Israel, while the PLO concluded the Oslo Accords in which it recognized Israel as part of the settlement process. Hamas’ position still focuses on the historical rights of the Palestinian people, and refuses to make any concessions regarding the principle of national sovereignty or the renunciation of lands.

However, Harfoush points out that Hamas today operates within a different political reality, which requires it to consider a strategy to achieve tangible gains for the Palestinian people while preserving national constants. Therefore, it can be said that if Hamas engages in any dialogue process, it may start from a position of re-evaluating the conditions and needs on the ground, without this meaning adopting positions identical to those of the PLO, but rather building different strategies that are consistent with its vision and principles.

Harfoush stresses that the well-known American conditions for dialogue, which include recognizing Israel, renouncing violence, and adhering to previous agreements, have always been an obstacle to any communication between Hamas and the American administration. However, politics is the art of the possible, and depends on flexibility and adapting to changes.

Harfoush asserts that Hamas, as is evident from the statements of its leaders, does not deal with these conditions in the form of absolute acceptance or rejection, but rather proceeds from a pragmatic approach that seeks to achieve the interests of its people within the available political framework. Likewise, the movement’s readiness to provide protection to an American envoy and his visit to Gaza may be an implicit message that there is a readiness for dialogue without abandoning the fundamental principles.

Harfoush believes that Hamas is unlikely to make initial concessions that contradict its national vision, but it may seek to find a formula of understanding that achieves a balance between the requirements of political reality and the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. However, the question remains open about the extent to which the parties are able to create a dialogue environment that enables them to overcome preconditions and reach compromises that serve everyone.

Providing a realistic model for post-war politics

Writer and political analyst Suleiman Basharat believes that Hamas's readiness to open a dialogue with the United States reflects the movement's desire to present a realistic model for politics in the post-war period on the Gaza Strip.

Basharat explains that Hamas seeks not to antagonize the international community, but rather wants to appear as a force open to political solutions that can restore some rights to the Palestinian cause.

Basharat stresses that this step reflects political realism in international relations, especially in light of the new international structure with the arrival of US President Donald Trump, who carries political visions and projects that he wants to impose, whether the Palestinians accept them or not.

Basharat stresses that the political intelligence of the Palestinians lies in how to deal with this stage without excluding any of the Palestinian components.

Basharat points out that the future paths of the Palestinian cause require extreme caution and awareness, in addition to Palestinian unity and a comprehensive discourse that fully expresses Palestinian rights.

Basharat stresses that any future dialogue with any international party must start from a comprehensive Palestinian foundation and a comprehensive Palestinian understanding, which requires an internal Palestinian dialogue before opening any future doors with international parties.

Basharat warns that the Israeli measures in the West Bank and Gaza Strip indicate the existence of a future Israeli vision that may intersect with the American vision, which necessitates a unified Palestinian proposal to mitigate the damage that may be inflicted on the Palestinian cause.

Basharat stresses that there is an urgent need for a political umbrella that includes all Palestinians, which would be a basic title at this stage.

Basharat points out that major conflicts witness critical moments, as happened in the American war on Afghanistan and the Syrian situation, where political doors were opened to forces that were classified as terrorist, stressing that this does not mean that Hamas can be an alternative to the Palestine Liberation Organization, but rather there must be a comprehensive political umbrella for all Palestinians.

Basharat explains that the United States may try to subjugate Hamas to political tracks, but it will not deal with it based on good faith. Rather, it will impose a political track that Hamas may be forced to accept. He points out that Hamas balances between its principles and political realism, which puts it in a very sensitive phase.

He points out that the current stage is a stage of labor, and it is not possible to determine the path that the Palestinian issue will take, especially with the rapid changes at the internal Palestinian, regional and international levels.

Basharat believes that the American vision for the future of the Middle East and the Palestinian issue is still unclear, which makes it too early to judge the trends of this stage.

Basharat explains that Hamas faces great pressure in balancing its principles with political realism, especially in light of its fear of losing the support of its masses.

Basharat believes that this stage requires an internal Palestinian dialogue to create agreed-upon foundations from which to launch the next stage.

Basharat stresses that it is too early to talk about opening a comprehensive dialogue between Hamas and the United States, but he stresses that any future dialogue must start from a comprehensive Palestinian platform and a unified political discourse that fully expresses Palestinian rights.

Chances of direct dialogue remain slim in the near term.

Qusay Hamed, a professor of political science at Al-Quds Open University, believes that the statements made by Musa Abu Marzouk, deputy head of the Hamas political bureau abroad, to the New York Times about the movement’s readiness to open a comprehensive dialogue with the United States and facilitate Witkoff’s visit, reflect Hamas’s desire to remove obstacles to opening direct channels of dialogue with the Trump administration, and its readiness to agree on new arrangements regarding the Gaza Strip, including accepting the administration or rule of Gaza by an agreed-upon party, without direct participation from the movement. But in the broader context, Hamed believes that Hamas is sending messages to the United States and the international community that the movement is open to dialogue and a political approach, and that the policy of exclusion and siege, in addition to the military strikes launched by Israel during its war on the Gaza Strip, and the targeting of its political and military leadership, have all failed to eliminate the movement, and that Hamas has been able to reorganize its ranks and appear victorious.

Hamed points out that the chances of direct dialogue between Hamas and the United States are still slim in the near term, despite some dialogues related to completing the exchange deal and the "day after" arrangements in the Gaza Strip, which are being conducted through mediators.

Hamed points out that the US administration is aware of the difficulty of excluding Hamas from any future arrangements in Gaza, despite its attempts to reduce the movement's role in these arrangements.

Regarding the visit of Trump's envoy to Gaza, Hamed believes that the security complications associated with this visit may reduce the chances of its completion in the near future, especially since facilitating it requires coordination with Hamas, whether directly or indirectly, to provide security protection. Also, any visit of this type will be the subject of discussion between the US administration and Hamas through mediators.

As for Hamas’s involvement in a political process with Israel, Hamed believes that Hamas does not object to that, provided that it is a useful process that leads to the Palestinians achieving their hopes and aspirations for a state on the borders of June 4, 1967.

Hamed believes that Hamas has made great strides in defining its position on this issue, which will culminate in 2017 with the issuance of a general policy document in which it showed openness to establishing a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, but the issues of recognizing Israel or giving up arms remain non-negotiable.

Hamed believes that the US linking acceptance of dialogue with Hamas to traditional conditions (recognizing Israel and abandoning military action) is illogical.

However, Hamed believes that the lines of communication between Hamas and the United States may indirectly intensify, especially in light of the new arrangements that the US administration is planning regarding the Gaza Strip.

Hamed believes that Abu Marzouk's statements, which came in an interview with an American newspaper, represent a diplomatic message directed to decision-makers in the United States, confirming that Hamas is still an influential political and military force in the Palestinian scene, and that excluding it from any future arrangements will be difficult, especially in light of Israel's failure to achieve its military goals in Gaza after more than 440 days of confrontations.