Dr. Hussein Al-Deek: US talks with Hamas are a message to Netanyahu that Washington has other options for negotiation if he does not complete the deal

Hani Abu Al-Sabaa: These negotiations may reflect a growing American awareness of the impossibility of reaching any permanent solution in the region without involving Hamas.

Dr. Dalal Erekat: This American move comes within a broader approach to contain armed resistance movements instead of confronting them directly

Noman Abed: It would have been better for Hamas to enter these talks as part of a unified Palestinian delegation, while ensuring that the Palestinian issue is discussed as a whole.

Dr. Walaa Qadimat: Washington wants to communicate with Hamas to control the pace of changes in the Palestinian arena, especially the future of Gaza and the Palestinian cause

In a remarkable development, there is talk that the administration of US President Donald Trump has begun opening channels of communication with the Hamas movement, in a move that is considered a precedent since the movement was classified as a terrorist organization in 1997, which is considered a shift in US policy towards the movement.

In separate interviews with “I,” writers, political analysts, specialists, and university professors believe that these talks may be part of American efforts to resolve the issue of detainees in the Gaza Strip, but they may extend to broader political arrangements that redefine the future of the Gaza Strip and the role of Hamas in it.

But they point out that the move could send a clear message to the Israeli government that Washington has other negotiating options if Israel does not complete the second phase of the current deal.

They point out that these talks may come as part of a broader American approach to contain armed resistance movements rather than confront them directly, while the talks may reflect a growing American awareness of the impossibility of reaching any permanent solution in the region without involving Hamas.

1. A historical precedent and a message that nothing is impossible in politics

The writer and political analyst specializing in American affairs, Dr. Hussein Al-Deek, explains that in a remarkable development, the United States of America has begun opening channels of communication with the Hamas movement, in a step that is considered a historical precedent since the movement was classified as a terrorist organization in 1997.

According to Al-Deek, this move sends a clear message that “nothing is impossible in politics, and when it comes to interests, everything is possible.”

Al-Deek points out that these talks come within the framework of American efforts to resolve the issue of detainees in the Gaza Strip, but they may extend to broader political arrangements that redefine the future of the Strip and the role of Hamas in it.

Al-Deek points out that relations between the United States and political Islam movements are not new. Historically, Washington has negotiated with Islamic forces on more than one occasion. For example, after the Muslim Brotherhood won in Egypt in 2012, the US administration established strong diplomatic relations with President Mohamed Morsi. The administration of President Donald Trump in his first term also negotiated with the Taliban movement, which was classified as a terrorist organization, and signed the Doha Agreement with it in 2018. These precedents show that the United States deals with these movements based on its strategic interests, which explains its current orientation towards Hamas.

According to Al-Deek, the talks with Hamas carry multiple messages. There is a message to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Washington has other options for negotiating if Israel does not complete the second phase of the current deal.

According to Al-Deek, this step is a pressure on Netanyahu to push him towards completing the second phase of the agreements related to the exchange of prisoners and detainees, as well as a strong message to the Israeli opposition and the families of Israeli prisoners, who have begun to see that the key to resolving the issue of their sons lies in Washington and not in Tel Aviv.

Al-Deek confirms that President Trump recently met with eight prisoners and detainees who were released from Gaza, arranged by the Zionist lobby in the United States, as this step shows that there is a new trend towards pressuring the American administration to play a more effective role in pushing Netanyahu’s government to complete the deal.

Although the current talks seem to be focused on the issue of prisoners and detainees, Al-Deek believes that they may extend beyond that to broader political files. The ongoing contacts between the American hostage file official, Adam Boehler, and Hamas leaders in Doha may lead to a permanent ceasefire and a political agreement on the future of the Gaza Strip. This step is a historic precedent, as the United States has never coordinated with Hamas since it was classified as a terrorist organization.

Al-Deek points out that the United States has a precedent for changing its positions on movements that were classified as terrorist. Previously, Washington considered the PLO a terrorist organization, but later recognized it as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. The same thing may happen with Hamas, especially in light of its great popularity in the Palestinian street and the Israelis’ own recognition that it represents an intellectual and political movement that cannot be eliminated by military force.

Al-Deek believes that there is an important development in these negotiations, which is Washington’s realistic acceptance of Hamas as a political movement and part of the Palestinian national liberation movement. This acceptance may translate into American recognition of Hamas’ role as a representative of part of the Palestinian people, which may radically change the political scene in Gaza.

Al-Deek confirms that the current talks are addressing the possibility of reaching a long-term truce and a comprehensive agreement that would end the war and rearrange the situation in the Gaza Strip.

He points out that these developments are receiving great attention from international and regional parties, including Israel and Arab countries, which are closely following the details of these negotiations.

Al-Deek points out that the ongoing negotiations between Washington and Hamas may be the beginning of major changes in the political scene in Gaza. In addition to the issue of prisoners, there is a strong possibility that these talks will develop into political arrangements that recognize Hamas as a major player in the political future of the Strip. However, the success of these negotiations depends on developments in the coming days and weeks, and the ability of the parties concerned to overcome the obstacles that may stand in their way, especially the issue of hostages.

Washington seems ready to expand dialogue with Hamas

Writer and political analyst Hani Abu Al-Sabaa considers the remarkable shift in American discourse towards Hamas that has taken place in the political arena, where direct negotiations between American envoy Adam Mueller and a high-level Hamas delegation in the Qatari capital, Doha, were officially announced as a surprising development of great importance.

Abu Al-Sabaa points out that this step comes only weeks after the Trump administration threatened to open the “gates of hell” on the movement, which raises questions about the nature of this shift and its causes.

According to the writer Abu Al-Sabaa, these negotiations, although they focused publicly on the issue of releasing dual-nationality prisoners, also addressed deeper and more complex issues, including the management of the Gaza Strip, the permanent ceasefire, in addition to pending issues such as reconstruction and the management of the crossings.

Abu Al-Sabaa points out that these negotiations may reflect a growing American awareness of the impossibility of reaching any permanent solution in the region without involving Hamas, which held out throughout the last war and still enjoys broad support among citizens in Gaza despite the massive destruction that befell the Strip.

Abu Al-Sabaa raises a fundamental question: Do these negotiations constitute an implicit recognition of Hamas’s legitimacy? Or are they merely a tactical move by Washington to contain the movement within the framework of a broader strategy? It seems that the answer may be closer to the second possibility, as the United States appears prepared to expand the scope of dialogue with Hamas, which was expressed by the movement’s leader, Musa Abu Marzouk, the official in charge of the foreign relations file, when he expressed the movement’s readiness to enter into dialogue with America as soon as the first phase of the deal begins to be implemented.

Although the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed concern about this direct dialogue between the Trump administration and Hamas, Abu Al-Sabaa believes that this dialogue will not be the last, but will be repeated and expanded to include discussing all pending issues between the two parties.

He points out that given the location of the meetings, Qatar, which previously successfully mediated between the Taliban and the United States regarding the withdrawal from Afghanistan, appears once again to be an effective mediator.

Abu Al-Sabaa points out that the next rounds of negotiations may reach a stage that will be announced in advance, with their outcomes being revealed to the public.

Abu Al-Sabaa believes that the region may be on the cusp of a new phase of restructuring, as the United States seeks to stop wars and begin a phase of investment in the economy. Washington’s support for wars in the region has allowed countries like China to compete economically with it worldwide without engaging in direct wars, prompting America to re-evaluate its strategy in the region.

Deep political and strategic implications

Dr. Dalal Erekat, professor of diplomacy and conflict resolution at the Arab American University, points out that Washington’s holding of direct talks with Hamas in Qatar through its envoy for the hostage file carries several deep political and strategic implications. This step comes in the context of an intertwined context of internal and external pressures facing the US administration, in addition to Washington’s awareness of the failure of Israeli military solutions to achieve its goals.

Erekat points out that the US administration’s primary focus in these talks is on the issue of detainees, especially American hostages. The message of former US President Donald Trump via his “X” platform after his meeting with eight of the freed hostages in the White House confirmed this approach, as his message was full of threats and coercive orders, which raises questions about the nature and seriousness of these direct talks.

She explains that Trump's priorities revolve primarily around ending the hostage crisis, in light of intense domestic pressure from the families of the detainees and American public opinion.

Erekat points out that the US administration is exerting great pressure to achieve this goal, which makes the hostage file a major axis in the negotiations.

Erekat explains that despite the United States' classification of Hamas as a terrorist organization, entering into direct talks with it indicates Washington's recognition of its ability to influence the course of events, especially in light of the complexity of the regional scene and Washington's unwillingness to engage militarily.

Erekat points out that Trump's demand that Hamas leaders leave Gaza to leave a future for civilians reflects this implicit recognition.

She believes that this American move comes within a broader approach to contain armed resistance movements rather than confronting them directly. Washington has previously dealt with various factions in the Middle East, such as the Syrian Democratic Forces (Kurdish) in Syria, and undeclared understandings with Hezbollah in Lebanon. This reflects a shift in the way it deals with non-state actors that Israel refuses to recognize.

Erekat points out that this step may reflect Washington's awareness of the limitations of the Israeli military option and the need to search for negotiated political solutions. After more than a year and a half of intensive military aggression, Israel has not been able to achieve its goals of defeating Hamas or subjugating the Palestinian people in Gaza.

According to Erekat, Washington is facing internal pressure from American public opinion and progressive Democrats to stop unconditional support for Israel, and is also exposed to international pressure from its allies in the Middle East and Europe to push for a political solution, noting that these pressures may be a major driver behind changing the American approach.

Erekat believes that in the absence of a strong Palestinian authority in Gaza, Hamas appears to be the only party capable of negotiating and implementing any future agreements, whether regarding prisoners or ceasefire arrangements.

Erekat points out that this reality makes Hamas an indispensable party in any future negotiations.

She explains that on the surface, the talks seem to focus on the release of detainees, but they may expand to deeper and larger files, including: a long-term ceasefire, as Washington may use the detainees file as a pressure card to push the two parties to a long-term truce, in preparation for a broader agreement.

Among the files, according to Erekat, are post-war arrangements in Gaza, as the talks may include security arrangements such as easing the siege, guarantees of no escalation in the future, and perhaps re-establishing previous agreements such as the 2014 understandings.

Erekat points out that Qatar, Egypt and Turkey may play a role in expanding the talks to include reconstruction, humanitarian aid and reorganizing the internal Palestinian scene.

She believes that the talks focus primarily on the hostage issue, but involving Hamas in the dialogue goes beyond this goal to reflect an American approach to containing armed actors rather than isolating them, which is what we have seen in other issues such as Syria and Lebanon.

Erekat points out that the continuation of these talks may reflect a shift in American policy towards the Palestinian issue, which may lead to new dynamics in the region, while maintaining Israel's interests as a priority.

Trump administration adopts approach aimed at calming conflict zones

Writer, political analyst and international relations specialist Noman Abed explains that the current US administration is adopting an approach aimed at calming conflict zones globally, including the Middle East, in a way that serves its strategic interests.

Abed points out that Washington has become convinced that it is impossible to defeat the Palestinian resistance militarily, despite the unprecedented military support it has provided to the Israeli occupation government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu.

Abed explains that the US administration, after five months of the Israeli aggression on Gaza, has come to realize that military means have not achieved their goal of breaking the Palestinian resistance.

He points out that Netanyahu used all the tools of modern military power, intelligence and operations, with direct support from the United States, and yet he failed to eliminate the Palestinian resistance and the Hamas movement or to completely subjugate the Gaza Strip.

He stresses that this realization prompted Washington to adopt a new strategy, which was represented in shifting to negotiations with the Palestinian factions, headed by the Hamas movement, where mediation began in the ceasefire talks, and the introduction of humanitarian aid, then moving to more complex files such as withdrawing forces, and declaring the end of the Israeli aggression.

Abed points out that the US talks with Hamas in Qatar are part of a new US approach based on direct negotiations with parties that Washington considers “adversaries,” citing Trump’s experience in dealing directly with the North Korean leader, and Trump’s desire to engage in dialogue with Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the war in Ukraine.

Abed believes that the Biden administration is now applying the same approach in the Gaza file, by opening direct channels of communication with the Hamas movement.

Abed believes that direct negotiations with Hamas carry several political messages, the first of which is to the Palestinian interior, as these discussions reflect American recognition of the movement’s existence as a major party that cannot be bypassed, which strengthens its position in the Palestinian political scene.

The second message, according to Lab D, is to Netanyahu's government, as the talks reflect the US administration's dissatisfaction with the Israeli prime minister's stalling tactics in the negotiations, and his attempts to exploit time for domestic purposes, which could affect his political position if direct negotiations between Washington and Hamas continue, especially if they yield tangible results.

Abed links these negotiations to the plan proposed by the recent Arab Summit, which came at the initiative of Egypt, considering that direct negotiations with Hamas may support the implementation of this plan, which aims to stop the Israeli aggression and rebuild the Gaza Strip, in addition to stabilizing the situation in the Strip in preparation for reorganizing the Palestinian scene.

Abed confirms that the talks between Hamas and the United States are not limited to the prisoner exchange file, although it represents a priority for Washington, especially since there are American prisoners among those held by Hamas.

Abed explains that the US administration had initially focused on freeing prisoners who held US citizenship, but the negotiations expanded to include other issues, reflecting a shift in the US vision for the future of the conflict.

However, Abed warns that these talks may affect national unity, criticizing that they are being conducted by Hamas alone without the participation of all factions, most notably the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Abed points out that it would have been more appropriate to form a unified Palestinian delegation that includes all parties, because the Palestinian people in Gaza are the ones being subjected to genocide and destruction, not a specific faction.

Abed points out that Hamas and the Palestinian Authority are exchanging accusations regarding the lack of a unified Palestinian position, at a time when everyone was supposed to overcome their differences and unite to confront the Israeli aggression and plans to liquidate the Palestinian cause.

Abed believes that excluding the Palestine Liberation Organization from the negotiations may lead to weakening its political position regionally and internationally, especially after it appeared as if it was separate from what was happening after October 7, 2023, in terms of a war of extermination, although what happened after that requires a unified Palestinian position to confront this unprecedented attack.

Abed points out that it would have been better for Hamas to enter these discussions as part of a unified Palestinian delegation, while ensuring that the Palestinian issue is discussed as a whole, including the aggression on Gaza and the West Bank.

Abed believes that this approach may affect the outcomes of the Arab Summit, and may increase the distance between Hamas and the Palestine Liberation Organization, which will reinforce the exclusivity of each faction individually, instead of achieving true Palestinian unity.

Abed believes that the ongoing negotiations with Hamas reflect a strategic shift in American policy, but at the same time they raise questions about the future of Palestinian representation in these talks.

Abed stresses that overcoming the Palestinian division was necessary before starting the negotiations, because that would have prevented each faction from acting alone, and would have ensured a unified Palestinian position capable of imposing its political conditions in any future settlement.

Talks may signal Washington's disinterest in Arab plan

Writer and political researcher Walaa Qadeem explains that the ongoing talks between Hamas and the United States may reflect Washington’s desire to move forward towards ceasefire negotiations, according to a path it deems appropriate.

She points out that these talks come within the framework of the United States' focus on releasing the largest possible number of detainees and reaching a temporary truce. They also fall within an American plan to pressure Hamas to follow the arrangements that are consistent with the American-Israeli vision for the future of the Gaza Strip.

Qadeem believes that these talks may also indicate the United States' indifference to the Arab plan, and may even reflect an attempt to put pressure on all parties to accept what Washington and the Israeli occupation state want.

Old sources indicate that the United States may be seeking to bypass Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's position regarding the ceasefire negotiations, as Washington wants to reach a calm or truce, perhaps to avoid the continuation of the war in the bloody manner it was.

Qadeemat explains that the United States seeks, in short, to manage the negotiations as it sees fit, in line with its interests and the vision of Netanyahu and the Israeli occupation state, noting that these talks come in the context of American pressure on Hamas to move forward on the path adopted by Washington.

Qaddimat believes that direct communication with Hamas, which the United States classifies as a terrorist organization, is a significant development, as these talks are taking place with the American envoy for hostage affairs, who has the authority to speak and listen to all parties.

Qadeem believes that Washington wants, through this communication with Hamas, to control the pace of changes in the Palestinian arena, especially with regard to the future of the Gaza Strip and the Palestinian cause.

Qadeemat indicates that these talks are primarily aimed at extracting the largest possible number of detainees, but they may develop in the future to include reaching a truce between Hamas and the Israeli occupation state, which is what the United States wants.

Qadeemat points out that these talks may be a first step towards more effective American management of the crisis in the region, but they will remain governed by the framework that Washington and Tel Aviv draw up for the future of Gaza and the Palestinian issue.