In a first, the Trump administration has done what would have been unthinkable months ago, it has opened a direct channel with Hamas. This signals a shift from Trump’s hardline stance of “total victory” to a more pragmatic approach, likely driven by the urgency of hostage negotiations.

The war in Gaza has been nothing short of relentless, for over 17 months, this conflict is defined by destruction, unwavering ultimatums, and a staggering death toll. Any talk of a political solution has been drowned out by the relentless bombing, the iron-fisted rhetoric of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the US’s long-standing refusal to engage with Hamas, a group it categorizes as a terrorist organization.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed the development, stating that the special envoy handling negotiations now has the authority to engage with any relevant parties. While Trump himself has been vocal about his disdain for Hamas, at one point calling its members “sick and twisted” and threatening to expel Palestinians from Gaza, the reality on the ground appears to be forcing a different strategy.

With 59 hostages still in Hamas’ custody, including at least one surviving American, Edan Alexander, the US may be testing the waters to see what Hamas wants in return for their release. This is a significant shift from previous negotiations, which were always conducted through mediators like Qatar and Egypt.

But here’s the real dilemma – even if Hamas engages in talks, will they agree to disarm? That’s the billion-dollar question haunting both Washington and Tel Aviv.

Hamas. Surrender Political Power or Keep Fighting?
For Israel, the war in Gaza has always had one primary objective, eliminating Hamas. Netanyahu has built his entire military strategy around achieving “total victory” but what if Hamas is willing to step away from governance?

Hamas spokesperson Hazem Qassem hinted at this possibility in an interview last month, stating that Hamas does not necessarily need to be part of the future political or administrative structure of Gaza. This was further reinforced when Arab leaders proposed a transitional government for Gaza that would exclude Hamas, an idea the group surprisingly did not reject.

The harsh reality is that Hamas has long struggled to balance governance with resistance. Running schools, hospitals, and municipal services while also leading an armed struggle against Israel has created internal friction. Many of its top leaders, who have lived abroad in Qatar and Turkey for years, were reportedly unaware of the October 7 attack on Israel, indicating a divide between its political and military factions.

The big unknown is whether Hamas will agree to lay down its weapons. Internally, there’s growing debate. Some factions are reportedly open to the idea, but a hardline contingent insists that disarmament is a “red line” that cannot be crossed.

Gershon Baskin, a veteran Israeli negotiator who has spent years speaking with Hamas, warns that this internal divide could lead to chaos.

Why Netanyahu is Unhappy
As the US takes an unexpected diplomatic route, Netanyahu finds himself in a difficult position. For months, he has promised the Israeli public that Hamas will be wiped out entirely but if the US negotiates an agreement that allows Hamas to step down politically while keeping some form of armed resistance alive, it will be seen as a massive failure for his government.

Moreover, if Hamas walks away from political leadership but refuses to disarm, Israel could find itself stuck in an endless cycle of war. And Netanyahu, already facing domestic pressure and international scrutiny may soon have to explain why his grand plan for “total victory” has turned into a strategic puzzle with no clear solution.

The Negotiations

The reality of the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict and its diplomatic entanglements may be more complicated than what is publicly stated by involved parties.

Hamzé Attar, a Palestinian journalist and defense analyst, illustrates that Hamas is not acting irrationally. They understand that there is a point where weapons cease to be leverage and instead become an obstacle to their broader political ambitions. This point is inextricably tied to the idea of Palestinian statehood, which remains a non-negotiable issue for them. As political analyst Abusada points out, under international law, any occupied people, including Palestinians, have the right to resist, an argument often echoed in discussions about the war in Ukraine.

Hamas is also acutely aware that any agreement regarding a Palestinian state must have strong international backing. Saudi Arabia, for instance, has explicitly stated that its normalization of diplomatic relations with Israel hinges on the establishment of Palestinian statehood.

However, Netanyahu’s government has long dismissed the idea of a two-state solution. Since October 7, his stance has only hardened, branding any discussions about Palestinian sovereignty as a “reward for terrorism.” His administration has even entertained Trump-era plans encouraging the mass emigration of Gaza’s 2.1 million residents. His far-right allies have gone even further, pushing for the re-establishment of Jewish settlements in Gaza, a move that would inflame tensions even more.

Trump, as demonstrated in past dealings with the Taliban, has shown that he is willing to force American allies into uncomfortable positions if it suits his political interests. His administration’s deal with the Taliban led to the eventual collapse of the U.S.-backed Afghan government, raising concerns in Israel about what he might be willing to negotiate with Hamas. These fears intensified when it was revealed that U.S. envoys were in direct talks with Hamas, prompting a cryptic response from Netanyahu’s office, signaling unease over Washington’s diplomatic maneuvering.

However, analysts notes that the U.S. has minimal leverage over Hamas, and threats from Washington are largely ineffective. The real concern, they suggests, is that U.S. backing may embolden Israel to push further into legally and morally ambiguous territory, such as intensifying the humanitarian blockade on Gaza, a move Israel denies constitutes a breach of international law.

‘No Deal’ 

Despite mounting pressure, any resolution remains elusive. Hamas continues to assert that there is no deal without an Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza, the full release of hostages, and an end to the war. Trump’s approach to the situation has been confrontational, issuing ultimatums to Hamas via social media. His posts have threatened the militant group with complete annihilation if hostages are not released immediately, while simultaneously dangling the prospect of a “beautiful future” for Gaza, if only Hamas complies.

Trump’s remarks were met with swift condemnation from Hamas, with spokesman Abdel-Latif al-Qanou accusing him of strengthening Netanyahu’s efforts to tighten the siege on Gaza. Al-Qanou maintained that the only viable path to resolving the hostage crisis was to move into the next phase of the ceasefire negotiations. However, the first phase of the ceasefire has already ended, with Israel subsequently imposing an even stricter blockade, barring all supplies from entering Gaza. Humanitarian groups warn that the situation is becoming dire, with over 2.3 million Palestinians facing the prospect of starvation.

Amid these developments, the U.S. has reportedly proposed a 60-day ceasefire in exchange for Hamas releasing 10 Israeli hostages. This deal, sources say, would also include humanitarian aid for Gaza and discussions regarding the positioning of Israeli forces along the Philadelphi Corridor. Hamas is still considering its response, though its spokesman Abu Obeida has warned that renewed Israeli aggression will likely lead to more hostages being killed.

Meanwhile, diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Hamas, held in Doha under the mediation of Egypt and Qatar also appear to have hit a snag after leaks to the media. These discussions reportedly focused on securing the release of American-Israeli hostages, a development that Netanyahu was allegedly kept in the dark about. The Israeli prime minister’s dissatisfaction perhaps shows a deepening rift between Israel and its key ally, the U.S., over how best to handle the ongoing crisis.

Trump’s national security team remains concerned that Hamas has managed to recruit more fighters than it has lost in battle. Senior Hamas figures have also indicated that the group is prepared for a long struggle and will resist any outside force attempting to dictate terms in Gaza. Meanwhile, Israel’s military chief has warned that the nation must prepare for a prolonged, multi-front war of attrition, an outcome that is unlikely to sit well with any American administration, let alone one that aims to present itself as a peacemaker.

in the end, the political reality remains grim. Israeli public opinion remains staunchly opposed to a Palestinian state, despite the undeniable demographic reality, more than seven million Israeli Jews and seven million Palestinian Arabs coexisting in a volatile, contested land. The future of the region hangs in the balance, shaped by competing nationalist aspirations, external diplomatic maneuvers, and the inescapable realities of war, forcing us to question – what will become of Gaza?