Trump's goals for direct negotiations with Hamas

Written by: Mohammed Ghazi Al-Jamal

The United States’ direct negotiations with Hamas is a development with significant implications for the negotiation process to end the war in the Gaza Strip, as it opens a path in which Israel’s ability to influence it is less than it was previously. This explains Israel’s apparent reservations about it.

While the occupying state received this development with reservation and fear, Netanyahu's office confirmed, in a statement, its knowledge of Washington's holding of direct talks with Hamas, and said that Israel had expressed its opinion to the Americans regarding those talks.

This is a formulation that indicates a hidden dissatisfaction with this matter. In the same context, the newspaper "Israel Today" quoted an informed source as saying that "Israel is very concerned about the Trump administration's direct talks with Hamas."

The difference between direct and indirect negotiation

The US administration has traditionally been careful to avoid engaging in direct talks with Hamas, which it has designated as a terrorist organization since 1997. American politicians have been repeating the slogan, “We do not negotiate with terrorists,” since the 1970s, on the pretext of not strengthening the legitimacy of these organizations, even though they have repeatedly violated this rule.

Trump invited Taliban representatives to Camp David in 2019 in an attempt to reach a peace deal, but canceled the meeting after Taliban attacks continued. Israel also negotiated with the Palestine Liberation Organization, with American support, during the Oslo Accords in 1993. This led to the PLO being recognized as a legitimate entity, despite having previously been designated a terrorist organization.

In this context, the US administration was communicating with Hamas through European officials, or through former US government officials, such as former US President Jimmy Carter, and diplomat Robert Malley, during periods when he was out of government work.

Through this tactic, the United States also seeks to avoid making any commitments or positions of a fixed nature, as what mediators or retired officials say is generally not binding on the US administration.

In the current state of war, direct negotiation provides an opportunity to increase the effectiveness of the negotiation, especially in light of the Trump administration’s distinction between US interests and Israeli interests.

Event context

The role of a set of data appears in the context of the event, including:

1- The Trump administration’s orientation towards giving priority to direct American interests, whether in terms of prisoners or in terms of the view of the war in Gaza and its broader repercussions.

This trend is evident in the White House spokeswoman’s justification for direct negotiations, saying: “Dialogue and talking to people around the world is in the best interests of the American people,” which President Trump has emphasized, believing it to be “a good faith effort to do what is right for the American people.”

2- The US administration’s fears of Netanyahu’s efforts to involve it in wars that do not serve US interests. The Israeli escalation last year put the region on the brink of a regional war, after the bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus, and the subsequent exchange of airstrikes between the two countries.

While the United States has in recent years avoided engaging in large-scale military confrontations in the region, as this would drain its resources and distract it from confronting its most important threat, which is the economic and military rise of China, which is pushing towards a decline in the United States’ position in the international system.

Trump's position on the war in Ukraine confirms this isolationist and cautious tendency to spend on wars far from the United States.

This is also the position of his right-wing team, as his deputy, Vance, was one of 15 Republican senators who voted against the US aid package to Israel on April 24, 2024, which Trump, at the time, led a campaign to delay until another package related to the borders was approved.

3- Israel’s failure to achieve its declared war goals, and the steadfastness of the Palestinian resistance despite the various tactics used by the occupation, and despite the unprecedented American political cover, which causes political and financial exhaustion, which prompts the American administration to search for new ways to achieve its interests, and avoid wasting more time waiting for a solution that Israel is unable to achieve on its own.

4- In a broader historical context, this behavior is consistent with American history and a European legacy of containing the conflict in Palestine through negotiations with both parties, from the British Mandate over Palestine to the present.

Political meaning and implications

The most important political meaning of direct negotiations is to disengage the American and Israeli tracks regarding prisoners, as there are now two tracks representing two parties with divergent interests.

In light of this disparity, the declared priority is American interests, not Israeli interests, even though there are many common interests between the two parties.

The most prominent repercussions of this development can be summarized as follows:

Weakening the Israeli negotiating position, as the US administration’s negotiations with both parties to the conflict reduce Israel’s influence in determining the political and military course of the war.

In this context, Trump's tough statements towards Hamas do not change the reality of the decline in the American position, but rather are an expression of interaction with the new negotiating position, and the pursuit of gains through exaggerating threats.

This is something that happened before, and then was reversed, when he gave Hamas a short deadline to release all prisoners, on February 10, and then referred the reaction to the Israeli side.

On the other hand, the goal of these statements may be to deny Trump's administration the accusation of weakness, at a time when it is forced to negotiate with an organization it considers a terrorist organization, a behavior that strengthens the political standing of the movement.

Trump had threatened Hamas on Wednesday, in what he called its "final warning," to end the movement if it did not immediately release all Israeli prisoners it holds and return the dead among them.

“This is your final warning! To the leadership, it is time to leave Gaza, you still have a chance. Also, to the people of Gaza, there is a beautiful future ahead, but not if you hold hostages. If you do, you are dead!” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Trump said there would be “hell” later if the prisoners were not released.

Increasing the chance of reaching a ceasefire agreement for a relatively long period, due to the emphasis on not being dependent on the orientations of the extreme Israeli right.

Strengthening the political legitimacy of Hamas as a party leading the Palestinian struggle, and negotiating with the US administration. Even if the negotiations are focused on field issues, it opens the door for the movement to be presented as a representative of the Palestinian people, expressing this people’s adherence to their rights and freedom, and their steadfastness in the face of attempts to subjugate them and liquidate their cause.

The risk of a direct clash with the US administration is increasing, given Trump’s highly personal behaviour and exaggerated reactions.

In general, the impact of this variable remains limited in the long term, due to the existence of a joint American-Israeli position towards liquidating the Palestinian cause in general, and undermining the Hamas movement in particular. Although it opens a breach in the wall of American-Israeli coordination, which was behind the continuation of the war for fifteen months. From Al Jazeera.