Dr. Tamara Haddad: Tel Aviv and Washington share a unified position on completely dismantling Hamas's military infrastructure and ensuring that it poses no security threat to Israel.

Nizar Nazzal: Hamas is interested in reaching an agreement with Washington because it will enable it to achieve a political breakthrough and put Israel in an embarrassing position.

Awni Al-Mashni: Washington aims to expel Hamas from Gaza without war and implement a displacement scenario without direct military confrontation as the core of the negotiating game.

Dr. Aql Salah: Boehler's statements about reaching a "grand deal" between Israel and Hamas represent a preparation for the Israeli street to accept the anticipated agreement.

Sari Samour: Hamas will never agree to give up its weapons because it is Hamas that forced Israel and the United States to negotiate with it.

Suleiman Basharat: The Trump administration wants to impose its vision on the region in the shortest possible time to devote itself to other international issues.

Amid accelerating diplomatic efforts to reach an agreement between Israel and Hamas, the tours of US hostage envoy Adam Boehler are emerging as a pivotal factor in efforts to conclude a comprehensive deal that includes a prisoner exchange and a long-term ceasefire. Talk of disarming Hamas is also underway, raising questions about whether he will actually succeed in his mission.

In separate interviews with Al-Quds, writers, political analysts, and experts point out that optimistic American statements about the possibility of success of these negotiations are accompanied by strict Israeli conditions, foremost among them the complete disarmament of Hamas. This would make the potential agreement a significant turning point if it succeeds. Furthermore, these efforts face fundamental challenges, most notably Hamas's position.

They say the ongoing negotiations are closely linked to US interests in the Middle East, as Washington seeks to achieve a long-term truce in Gaza while ensuring the strengthening of the normalization process with Arab countries.

While scenarios remain open, ranging from a historic agreement to a new military escalation, the coming weeks will be crucial in determining the course of these developments and their impact on the future of the region, according to writers, analysts, and experts.

Strong indications that a deal could be reached

Writer and political researcher Dr. Tamara Haddad says there are strong indications that a comprehensive prisoner exchange deal between Hamas and Israel could be reached in the coming weeks, according to a statement from US Special Envoy for Hostage Affairs Adam Boehler, who expressed optimism about the possibility of reaching an agreement, provided there are no major obstacles that could derail the negotiations.

Haddad explains that this deal, if implemented, will include a mutual release of prisoners, whereby Hamas will hand over all Israeli hostages held by it in exchange for the release of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli occupation prisons. However, the essence of the agreement is not limited to the exchange alone, but rather includes a long-term ceasefire, which could extend for a period of between 10 and 15 years, with a basic condition set by Israel and the United States: the complete disarmament of Hamas and its transformation into a political party within the new Palestinian political system, while ensuring its participation in governing the Gaza Strip, but without possessing any military wing or engaging in any future armed resistance.

According to Haddad, Tel Aviv and Washington are united in their demands for the complete dismantling of Hamas's military infrastructure and the guarantee that it will not pose any future security threat to Israel. Tel Aviv is also proposing another condition: the removal of the movement's senior leaders, specifically the commanders of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, from Gaza to ensure that the movement will not return to armed action after the agreement.

Several scenarios for the outcome of the negotiations between Hamas and America

Haddad explains that there are several scenarios for the ongoing negotiations between Hamas and the United States, including the following: Either reaching a comprehensive agreement, which is the most likely scenario if Hamas agrees to disarm and become a demilitarized political party in Gaza, in exchange for ensuring its continued rule, improving the humanitarian and economic situation in the Strip, and ensuring the regular delivery of humanitarian aid.

The second scenario, according to Haddad, is that the deal will falter and the status quo will remain, which would exacerbate the suffering of the Gaza Strip's residents, especially with the obstruction of humanitarian aid.

She added: "As for the third scenario, if negotiations fail, a limited military escalation could occur between Israel and Hamas, which could lead to international mediation to contain the situation, but without reaching a radical solution to the conflict."

Ground invasion if negotiations collapse

Haddad points out that the fourth scenario is a large-scale ground invasion of the Gaza Strip if negotiations collapse completely. This would mean significant civilian casualties among Palestinian civilians, in addition to the risk of a regional war, given the potential for Iran, Hezbollah, and the Houthis to intervene in the battle. Alternatively, a fifth scenario could be a temporary humanitarian truce without a final settlement.

Haddad asserts that the fate of the comprehensive deal depends on several key factors, most notably the American and Israeli positions, Hamas's willingness to agree to the terms of the agreement, and the positions of the international community and Arab states.

Haddad believes the coming weeks will be crucial in determining whether the region will witness a political breakthrough through a comprehensive deal, or whether matters will head toward a more dangerous military escalation.

Hamas did not accept disarmament.

For his part, Nizar Nazzal, a researcher specializing in Israeli affairs and conflict issues, asserts that statements by US envoy for hostage affairs Adam Boehler regarding the disarmament of Hamas were not accepted by the movement. Hamas was able to sidestep this proposal and deny it, emphasizing that the negotiations held in Doha with the United States were limited to the prisoner issue.

Nazzal explains that Hamas is very interested in reaching an agreement with Washington, as it would enable it to achieve a major political breakthrough and place Israel in an embarrassing position. If an agreement is reached between Hamas and the US administration on the prisoners' issue, Israel will be unable to reject it, which would marginalize its role in the issue—something Tel Aviv is trying to avoid by any means possible.

Nazzal points out that Hamas is seeking to open new horizons with the United States, especially since it has been on the US terrorist list since 1997.

According to Nazzal, the movement seeks to expand discussions with Washington to include deeper political issues, not just the prisoner issue, which explains its relentless efforts to strengthen communication with the US administration.

Nazzal believes that American statements about the possibility of reaching a deal reflect a trend toward concluding an agreement that includes the release of dual-nationality prisoners inside the Gaza Strip, particularly those holding American citizenship, whose number is estimated at four or five hostages.

The agreement with the United States is a major blow to Israel.

Nazzal asserts that the success of such an agreement would deal a severe blow to Israel, as it would give Hamas a clear signal that it has managed to neutralize Tel Aviv, reflecting a fundamental change in the nature of the conflict.

Nazzal explains that Washington is aware that Netanyahu is trying to arrange his political cards to serve his personal interests, rather than Israel's broader interests. This has prompted the United States to negotiate directly with Hamas, rather than simply coordinating with Israel, as was the case in the past.

Nazzal points out that the Doha negotiations marked a new phase in the "political clash" between the United States and Hamas, with Washington's priority in these talks now being the release of American prisoners, which makes the United States particularly keen to reach an agreement.

Nazzal asserts that if an agreement is reached through US talks with Hamas, it will cause a political shock in Israel, given that the Israeli government, led by Netanyahu and the ruling right-wing, is attempting to obstruct these negotiations and prevent their success by mobilizing the Zionist lobby within the United States to pressure against any agreement between Washington and Hamas.

Netanyahu angry about negotiating with Hamas

According to Nazzal, there are two main scenarios for the current negotiations: the success of the agreement between Washington and Hamas, which would embarrass Israel and portray it as an unnecessary party in this matter, and Hamas would be able to achieve a significant diplomatic gain by proving that it is not only a military party to the conflict, but also a political actor capable of negotiating with major international powers.

The second scenario, according to Nazzal, is that Israel will disrupt the agreement by applying pressure within the United States to prevent its completion, a scenario Netanyahu is strongly pursuing.

Nazzal believes that Netanyahu absolutely rejects any agreement that might lead to a ceasefire and an Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, because he seeks to weaken the Palestinian resistance, reoccupy the Strip, and displace its population.

Nazzal believes Netanyahu is deeply angered by the idea of negotiating with Hamas, because he believes the movement, which carried out a large-scale attack inside Israel on October 7, is now sitting at the negotiating table with the Americans. This makes him unwilling to reach any agreement that would keep Hamas in Gaza as an internationally recognized political party.

Nazzal explains that Israel is facing growing discontent within the Israeli public, as public opinion begins to reject Netanyahu's policies. This could place his government in a major political crisis, especially if the United States proceeds with direct negotiations with Hamas without requiring an active Israeli role in the deal.

A political solution to end the war and release prisoners

For his part, writer and political analyst Awni Al-Mashni says that with the escalation of diplomatic efforts to end the war in the Gaza Strip, the administration of US President Donald Trump appears unconcerned with the continuation of military operations in the Strip or their expansion into Lebanon. Rather, he believes, the administration is focused on finding a political solution that will ensure an end to the war and the release of prisoners.

Al-Mashni points out that the US position may partly align with Hamas's interests in ending the war, but it differs fundamentally, as the Trump administration seeks to achieve Israel's strategic goals without resorting to further military operations.

According to Al-Mashni, Washington aims to expel Hamas from Gaza without war and implement a displacement scenario without direct military confrontation, which represents the core of the negotiating game being waged by the various parties.

Al-Mashni asserts that the ongoing negotiations are complex, with Israel, the United States, and Hamas all trying to achieve as many of their goals as possible, despite the impossibility of any party getting everything it wants. Hamas, aware of the challenges on the ground and politically, is seeking to compensate for its declining military influence with a direct political presence. This explains its desire to participate in direct negotiations with the United States, something the movement sees as a promising start to strengthening its position on the international stage.

Gaza will not become a future security threat to Israel.

For Washington and Tel Aviv, the shared goal is to ensure that Gaza does not become a future security threat to Israel. However, the main point of contention between the two sides is who will govern Gaza after the war. Israel considers any government that might unify Gaza and the West Bank to be an ideological threat by reinforcing Palestinian political identity, a move it strongly opposes. The Egyptian initiative thus emerges as a potential solution, but it requires an American-Arab consensus that will not be acceptable to Israel unless Washington exerts intense pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu's government.

He adds: Despite the complexity of the negotiations, the resumption of large-scale military operations remains the most remote possibility, as war is not in the interest of any party, not even Israel, whose army is suffering from a state of field exhaustion that makes it difficult for it to engage in a new confrontation with the same momentum. However, keeping the region on the brink of war represents a political pressure tool used by the United States and Israel to push Hamas to make significant concessions.

Hamas has clear limits to its concessions.

However, Al-Mashni points out that Hamas is aware of these tactics and has clear limits on its level of concessions. Despite its willingness to compromise, it will not reach the level of concessions that threaten its political existence, even if that means significantly reducing its military influence.

Al-Mashni believes that all parties are practicing a "finger-biting" policy in an attempt to gauge the other's endurance, which makes the current situation a fragile balance between political pressure and possible concessions.

Al-Mashni points out that the biggest losers in this equation are the spectators—the civilians who pay the price for remaining outside the negotiating equation, amid a complex political game that determines the fate of the entire region.

Gradual descent down the political ladder

For his part, writer and political researcher Dr. Aqel Salah asserts that statements by US Special Envoy for Hostage Affairs Adam Boehler regarding a "grand bargain" between Israel and Hamas represent a prelude to the Israeli public's acceptance of the anticipated agreement, amidst accelerating US statements that reflect a trend toward direct negotiations with Hamas.

Salah explains that these statements represent a gradual descent down the political ladder, as they reflect the United States' acceptance of the idea of an agreement with Hamas, in line with Qatari and Egyptian views, which see Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as the primary obstacle to the deal's completion.

Salah points out that the US administration realizes that Israel is incapable of waging a new war, given the potential losses it could incur, prompting it to directly lead negotiations with the goal of imposing a final agreement.

Salah believes that popular pressure within Israel, particularly from the families of the Israeli hostages, is pushing for an acceleration of the negotiations, with the families and the hostages themselves making direct appeals to Trump to pressure him to implement the deal.

Reaching a radical solution to end the war

According to Salah, the most important message from the US statements is that there will be no release of the Israeli hostages without a radical solution to end the war. This reflects Washington's conviction that the crisis can only be resolved through a comprehensive agreement that takes into account the demands of both Hamas and Israel and ensures continued calm in the Gaza Strip.

Salah believes that the United States views the agreement as an opportunity for Israel to regroup, by restoring its global image and enhancing its military and human capabilities, which were affected by the war. The US administration is also sending implicit messages to the Israeli far right, led by Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, that the only solution is negotiation, not escalation. This gives Netanyahu an opportunity to maintain his government coalition without bearing sole responsibility for the agreement, as the deal will be presented as a strategic American demand that serves Israeli national security and contributes to strengthening the process of normalization with Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia.

Salah believes that the agreement could be reached gradually through mediators, with the United States and the agreement's guarantors pledging to gradually cease fighting, and the hostages being handed over in stages over two to three months.

Post-war political arrangements

According to Salah, the agreement will include political arrangements for the post-war period, including determining who will administer the Gaza Strip, with the possibility of forming an independent and neutral committee without direct representation from Hamas, until general Palestinian elections are held.

Salah points out that it is unlikely that Hamas will agree to completely disarm, but the issue could be resolved through a long-term truce of 20 to 25 years, in which Hamas pledges not to use or develop its weapons, in exchange for American and international guarantees to maintain the calm.

Salah asserts that the US administration has become convinced that Israel has no choice but to accept the US proposals. This explains the direct negotiations between Washington and Hamas, a move aimed at preparing American and Israeli public opinion to accept the upcoming agreement, which is expected to be comprehensive and put an end to the ongoing war.

Boehler's statements may be an attempt to deceive Hamas.

Writer and political analyst Sari Samour believes that circulating reports about the possibility of Hamas disarming as part of a comprehensive deal with Israel are inaccurate and a media fabrication aimed at promoting specific political agendas.

Samour asserts that Hamas will never agree to give up its weapons, as these weapons are what forced Israel and the United States to negotiate with the movement.

"Without these weapons, Hamas would be easy prey for its enemies," Samour says. "That's why it's interested in developing its military capabilities, not abandoning them."

Commenting on statements by US hostage affairs envoy Adam Boehler regarding the possibility of reaching a "grand bargain" including a prisoner exchange and a long-term ceasefire, Samour notes that these statements are directed at more than one party and may simply be a tactic to buy time.

Samour points out that these statements may be an attempt to deceive Hamas, pointing out that there is a strong possibility of Israeli-American treachery at a later stage, saying, "Israel is not a party that can be trusted, and history is replete with agreements it has not adhered to."

Just a bait to lure Hamas to a certain path

Samour explains that the Trump administration relies on negotiations with its traditional enemies, and therefore talk of a "comprehensive deal" to resolve the Palestinian issue is illogical, as this issue is non-negotiable. It is either Palestine or Israel.

Samour believes that what matters most to Israel and the United States now is the prisoner exchange deal, arguing that this step could be a "bait" to lure Hamas toward a certain path, which could then be exploited to launch a new military operation against Gaza.

Samour asserts that Hamas is well aware of this scenario and will therefore not accept any agreement that does not achieve its primary goals: ending the war, completing a prisoner exchange deal, Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, and the reconstruction of the Strip.

Samour explains that there are several scenarios that could unfold in the coming period, including the outbreak of a new round of fighting, even if it is short, with the aim of moving the negotiations forward and making both parties more willing to make concessions.

Extension of the first phase of negotiations

According to Samour, the second scenario could involve a partial truce, whereby an agreement is reached to extend the first phase of negotiations while partially entering the second phase. Each side would then reap some gains that would enable it to claim successes under American pressure and the current Arab reality.

The third scenario, according to Samour, is for the situation to remain unchanged for an unknown period, pending a major change in the political or military landscape that could render Gaza less important to Israeli calculations, although this scenario is considered weak.

Samour points to the fourth scenario, which involves signing an agreement with a flexible timetable, where the stages of implementation are determined according to developments on the ground and diplomatically, but with concerns that Israel will not abide by any of its commitments.

Samour believes that the next phase will witness a lot of political and military maneuvering, warning that "the experience with Israel is extremely worrying. It does not abide by agreements, and its side cannot be guaranteed."

Samour believes that Hamas will not compromise on the core of its demands, and that any agreement must achieve the minimum goals of the Palestinian resistance, otherwise it will not be acceptable to the movement.

Strong US desire to de-escalate the war in Gaza

For his part, writer and political analyst Suleiman Basharat believes that recent US moves, particularly through Trump administration envoy Adam Boehler, reflect a strong American desire to de-escalate the war in Gaza, paving the way for the implementation of a broader vision for the future of the Middle East that serves both American and Israeli political interests.

Basharat explains that Washington realizes that keeping the Gaza and hostage issue in Netanyahu's hands means further procrastination and delay, something the Trump administration does not want.

Basharat asserts that Boehler's recent statements about the possibility of reaching a "grand bargain" indicate that unannounced discussions may go beyond the war in Gaza to include promoting normalization between Israel and Arab states, particularly Saudi Arabia, and perhaps developing a new vision for the Palestinian political process.

Basharat believes the Trump administration wants to impose its vision on the region as quickly as possible, freeing up time to address other international issues. Therefore, it is seeking to expedite solutions.

Basharat explains that the US administration has clearly begun to take action against Netanyahu's procrastination, realizing that the continuation of the war without a solution will impact American interests in the Middle East.

The US administration is working on several parallel tracks.

Basharat points out that the US administration is working on several parallel tracks: internal pressure on Israel through Israeli public opinion to prevent Netanyahu from thwarting any peace initiatives; placing Hamas and the Palestinian resistance under pressure from regional mediators to prevent any obstacles to the settlement; and finding a compromise that serves American and Israeli interests without appearing to be a complete concession to Hamas.

Basharat presents three main scenarios for what might happen after the ongoing meetings between the United States and Hamas via mediators.

Basharat explains that the first scenario, which involves imposing the US vision on all parties, could lead to Washington succeeding in passing a deal that combines a gradual ceasefire agreement with a diplomatic track involving Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, and Israel, with the goal of achieving long-term stability in the region.

The second scenario, according to Basharat, is a testing phase for ideas before making decisive decisions. These moves may simply be an attempt to test the waters of Hamas and the Palestinian resistance to understand their willingness to respond to the proposed solutions before Washington adopts a final plan.

A scenario of failed negotiations and renewed military escalation

Regarding the third scenario, Basharat explains that it could be the failure of negotiations and renewed military escalation. If the parties fail to reach an understanding, we could witness a short, measured round of military escalation aimed at forcing Hamas to make concessions and come to the negotiating table on terms more in line with the American vision.

Basharat believes the solution lies somewhere between the first and second scenarios, namely accelerating the process of reaching understandings that would de-escalate the war on Gaza without completely ending the conflict, while keeping the door open for broader political and diplomatic settlements.

Basharat asserts that the Trump administration is racing against time to achieve political gains and force all parties to adapt to its vision for the region. He believes that the next phase will witness pivotal transformations in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and regional relations.