The release of Idan Alexander: New implications for US politics and Israeli relations

In an unconventional move, Idan Alexander, a US-Israeli citizen who had been held by Hamas in the Gaza Strip, was released yesterday evening. This move, the result of direct negotiations between the United States and Hamas, carries profound political implications affecting various regional issues, from domestic Israeli politics to US-Israeli relations and the roles of several other countries.

What distinguishes this event is that it represents the first publicly announced direct negotiations between Washington and Hamas, which indicates a significant shift in US policies, which have long rejected direct engagement with the movement, considering it outside the framework of political legitimacy. It seems to me that the US administration, particularly under Donald Trump, has come to view direct engagement with parties previously considered "banned" as an urgent necessity for managing complex issues such as Gaza, regarding which Trump has expressed his vision in statements that may be uncertain.

The release deal also reveals a potential American openness to new tools for managing the conflict, including breaking certain political taboos. However, this openness in no way signifies a fundamental shift in the American principled position toward Israel, nor an actual reduction of its central role in America's regional strategy.

This shift in approach does not come out of nowhere, but rather is the result of multi-faceted pressure. On the one hand, there is a clear American effort to maintain a minimum level of "stability" in the region, fearing a renewed explosion that would threaten American interests. This comes after the occupying state assumed its security and military role in the region, continuing its war crimes, which are escalating today in Gaza and making it uninhabitable with American approval and partnership. On the other hand, advanced roles have emerged for some regional parties, such as Qatar and Egypt, which have exerted strong pressure on Hamas and Washington together to expedite the resolution of some humanitarian issues, foremost among them the issue of prisoners and relief in light of the starvation. Furthermore, this mechanism may have been used by Washington as an additional pressure card on the Netanyahu government to push it toward political and security changes that Tel Aviv does not desire, but rather serve Washington's interests.

For Israel, this move comes as Trump is visiting the region without Israel, and at a time when Netanyahu is grappling with complex domestic challenges, including rifts within the ruling coalition, mounting criticism of his security policy among Israelis, and widespread Israeli segments, including within the military establishment, addressing Trump directly as if he were their "president." Alexander's release, through mediation in which Israel was not directly involved, constitutes an implicit challenge to the concept of a "monopoly on security decisions" and increases pressure on the Netanyahu government to modify its approach to both Gaza and the West Bank, as well as its vision for regional arrangements.

However, this development does not mean that the US-Israeli alliance is on the verge of decline. This alliance is based on foundations that go far beyond mere circumstantial coordination or an exchange of interests. There are ideological, religious, security, and strategic dimensions, particularly regarding the shared biblical vision of Jerusalem and the West Bank, which they refer to as "Judea and Samaria," and their right to them; Israel's right to defend itself; and the unconditional support provided by the Christian Zionist movement within the United States, which is reflected in the orientations of most successive US administrations, including the current Trump administration.

What's most important in this scenario, however, is the realization that what's happening doesn't necessarily reflect a change in American goals, but rather in the tools used to achieve "America First." Recent history offers a similar example in the Afghan case, when Washington decided to negotiate directly with the Taliban despite its decades-long designation as a terrorist organization. The result wasn't a change in America's vision for the region, but rather a shift in its methods to serve the same strategic interests, even if this required changes in its relations with its allies.

Thus, the deal to release Idan Alexander represents a link in a broader process undertaken by the United States to reshape the balance of power in the region and employ flexible tools to serve fixed goals. However, this does not negate the fact that these shifts may have an impact on the political system in Israel itself, in light of growing talk within the corridors of American decision-making about the need to "modify the nature of the ruling system" in Israel to align with the "New Middle East" project that Washington seeks to impose to achieve its economic and political interests in the face of other international powers. In this project, Israel is viewed as a functional tool, rather than an independent state, like some other regional regimes.

Ultimately, what appears to be a tactical concession in US policy toward Hamas is nothing more than a reshuffle of the means to achieve the same goals with the PLO, while maintaining the partnership and alliance with Israel as a "state" as a fundamental principle, even if its expression varies in the coming period. This, within US calculations, requires a re-engineering of some of Israel's political structures, including the nature of the regime, as I mentioned, in order to ensure the sustainability of Israel's role as a functional tool in this brutal imperialist system in the world.