U.S.-Hamas Negotiations: Shifting Dynamics and Strategic Implications

Gaza is now in a difficult position with the completion of the first phase, as Israel has once again closed all crossings leading to the Strip, preventing the entry of humanitarian aid. This move is aimed at using starvation as a pressure tactic on Hamas to force it to accept Israel’s demands.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, backed by a U.S. green light, wants to extend the first phase of the agreement, which began on January 19, 2025, to release as many Israeli prisoners as possible in Gaza, without offering any reciprocal concessions or fulfilling the military and humanitarian obligations stipulated in the previous phase of the agreement.

In contrast, Hamas insists on starting negotiations for the second phase, which includes ending the war and the complete withdrawal of the occupation forces from Gaza, in preparation for the third phase, which is focused on the reconstruction of the devastated Strip.

In an interview with Al Jazeera Net, Palestinian writer and political analyst Ibrahim Al-Madhoun, director of the Palestinian media organization FIMED, addressed several questions about the course of these negotiations.

Why is the U.S. Negotiating with Hamas Now?

It wasn’t surprising that Hamas responded positively to any dialogue with the United States. It does not oppose engaging in talks with any country in the world, except for the Israeli occupation. Hamas sees opening channels with Washington as an important step to understand its positions and influence its decisions.

However, what is new this time is that the dialogue did not take place through back channels or unofficial figures but was held directly between a U.S. official and Hamas, marking a significant strategic shift.

The revealed dialogue is between Adam Bowler, a special envoy of President Donald Trump, and Hamas leaders, and is primarily focused on the American-Israeli prisoner Aidan Alexander held by Palestinian resistance forces.

However, this dialogue goes beyond being just humanitarian negotiations. It comes after the failure of Israel and the U.S. to achieve their objectives in the Gaza war and reflects a tactical shift in Washington’s approach to the conflict.

What Are the Implications of the Dialogue on the Conflict Equation?

There is no doubt that the mere holding of these negotiations is a severe blow to Netanyahu and his government. It shows the weakness of Israel and its inability to impose its will by force, despite using all brutal methods in its war on Gaza.

Israeli sources revealed Netanyahu’s anger at these talks and his repeated attempts to pressure the Trump administration to halt them, but he was unsuccessful. This development revealed Israel’s true role, simply a follower of U.S. policy, rather than the independent power it attempts to portray itself as.

What Should Hamas Demand?

Hamas has a real opportunity that should not be missed. It can build on this dialogue and turn it from just negotiations over an American prisoner into a broader political discussion.

Some of the demands that Hamas could raise include:

• Removing Hamas from the U.S. “terrorist” list.
• Recognizing Hamas as part of the political solution in the region.
• Ensuring Hamas’s role in any future Palestinian political equation, including the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).
• Negotiating for a long-term
• with conditions that guarantee Palestinian rights without compromising resistance.

Is This the Beginning of a U.S. Shift?

The realization in Washington that Hamas is part of the solution, not the problem, could be the beginning of broader shifts in U.S. policy toward the Palestinian issue. If Hamas can manage this dialogue wisely, it may find itself in front of a new political window that allows it to strengthen its international legitimacy, alleviate pressure on its allies, and perhaps even impose a new reality that changes the rules of the game in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Israel is well aware of the dangers of this path, and it is expected to try by all means to derail it. Some regional powers may also not welcome an American opening to Hamas, and we are likely to witness Israeli media campaigns, misleading leaks, and perhaps even political moves aimed at obstructing the dialogue.

The Impact of Trump’s Threats

Palestinian political analyst Wissam Afifa said that the U.S. threats carry a great contradiction between Trump’s threats and the course of negotiations that the U.S. administration has begun with Hamas. This negotiation, unprecedented at this level, was announced by the U.S. administration itself. Based on this, these threats can be seen as a means of exerting maximum pressure on Hamas to make some concessions during these negotiations.

These threats also come in the context of the U.S. administration no longer seeing the course of negotiations that Netanyahu’s government is following as effective. Time is running out, and the results from it are not proceeding at the same pace as those from negotiations with the U.S. administration, which relies on deals and quick results.

With this new path of negotiations, Hamas can present its vision as a central player, reflecting the acknowledgment that after all this war, the occupation has failed to eliminate it.

These threats must be taken seriously, as they were made by the U.S. president in an arrogant manner. The danger lies in the fact that they are not only aimed at Hamas or its leaders, but at the entire national project linked to resistance, not only in Gaza but throughout the Palestinian territories.

Hamas will deal with these pressures not by making concessions but by maintaining a realistic approach that takes into account the changing scene, including Trump’s statements, the outcomes of the Arab summit, field developments, and the status of resistance forces.

If Hamas succeeds in neutralizing the U.S. administration from being a central party in the conflict, it will have achieved much. Today, the U.S. no longer presents itself as a mediator but as another party, which complicates the scene because the U.S. is no longer a guarantor in the negotiations but is using all tools of pressure and threat.