Trump's goals for direct negotiations with Hamas

The United States' direct negotiations with Hamas represent a development with significant implications for the negotiations to end the war in the Gaza Strip. It opens a path over which Israel's ability to influence matters less than previously. This explains Israel's apparent reservations about it.

While the occupying state's reception of this development appeared cautious and apprehensive, Netanyahu's office confirmed in a statement its knowledge of Washington's direct talks with Hamas, and said that Israel had expressed its views on these discussions to the Americans.

This formulation indicates a hidden dissatisfaction with the matter. In the same context, the newspaper "Israel Today" quoted an informed source as saying, "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 avoided direct talks with Hamas, which it has designated as a terrorist organization since 1997. American politicians have repeated the slogan, "We do not negotiate with terrorists," since the 1970s, under 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 agreement, but canceled the meeting after continued Taliban attacks. Israel also negotiated with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), with US 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 communicated with Hamas through European officials, as well as through former US government officials, such as former US President Jimmy Carter and diplomat Robert Malley, when he was not in government service.

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

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

Event context

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

1- The Trump administration's tendency to prioritize direct American interests, whether in terms of prisoners or in terms of its view of the war in Gaza and its broader repercussions.

This trend is evident in the White House spokesperson's justification for direct negotiations, stating, "Dialogue and talking with people around the world is in the best interests of the American people," as President Trump emphasized, believing it to be "a good faith effort to do what's right for the American people."

2- The US administration's concerns about Netanyahu's efforts to embroil it in wars that do not serve American interests. Last year's Israeli escalation placed the region on the brink of a regional war, following 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, due to the depletion of its resources and the distraction it faces from confronting its most significant threat: China's economic and military rise, which is leading to a decline in the United States' standing in the international system.

Trump's position on the war in Ukraine confirms this isolationist and cautious tendency toward spending 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 had led at the time to delay until another package related to the borders was approved.

3- Israel's failure to achieve its declared war objectives, and the steadfastness of the Palestinian resistance despite the various tactics employed by the occupation, and despite the unprecedented American political cover, which causes political and financial exhaustion, prompting the American administration to seek new ways to achieve its interests and avoid wasting further 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 disentangle 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 sides.

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

Weakening Israel's negotiating position, as the US administration's negotiations with both sides of the conflict diminish Israel's influence in determining the political and military course of the war.

In this context, Trump's harsh statements toward Hamas do not alter the reality of the American position's decline. Rather, they represent an expression of a reaction to the new negotiating position and an attempt to gain gains through exaggerated threats.

This is something that happened before, but was later reversed. Hamas was given a short deadline to release all prisoners on February 10, and then the response was referred to the Israeli side.

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

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

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

Increasing the chance of reaching a relatively long-term ceasefire agreement, by ensuring that this matter is not dependent on the tendencies of the extreme Israeli right.

Strengthening Hamas's political legitimacy as the party leading the Palestinian struggle and negotiating with the US administration. Although the negotiations focus on field issues, they open the door for the movement to be presented as a representative of the Palestinian people, expressing the 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 behavior 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 on liquidating the Palestinian cause in general, and undermining the Hamas movement in particular. However, 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.