The direct talks between the United States and Hamas took Israel by surprise and led to an agreement that resulted in the release of the Israeli-American captive Edan Alexander.

This agreement was a shock to Israel, as it brought back memories of the US deal with the Houthi Ansar Allah group in Yemen. In both cases, the US chose to negotiate with non-state political actors to secure direct American interests: with the Houthis, it was to ensure maritime navigation, and with Hamas, it was to secure the release of a US citizen.

Political background and critical timing

The American decision to begin talks with Hamas came on the eve of President Donald Trump’s visit to the region, driven by his desire to achieve a political accomplishment freeing the only American captive held by Hamas. But this move also occurred amid a more complex regional and international context, as Israeli policies in Gaza had reached a state of complete deadlock.

Israel had exhausted all pressure tools on Hamas, the most prominent of which was the methodical starvation policy, applied persistently and in an unprecedented manner compared to modern conflicts post-World War II. The US gave Israel the opportunity to experiment with these policies and practically endorsed the Israeli narrative that more pressure would lead to achieving war goals – evident in its silence regarding Israel’s violations of the ceasefire after its first phase ended.

However, Israeli security assessments indicated that eliminating Hamas would take many years, while the starvation tactic had been fully depleted, and the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza was placing mounting pressure on the international community and embarrassing the US even more. To make matters worse, Israel’s public statements about the “morality of starvation” and “killing Gazans from child to elder” painted it as a blind destruction machine boasting about violating international law – at a time when Washington is supposedly promoting a vision of stability, peace, and conflict resolution in the region.

Recognising the war’s dead end and the birth of an alternative negotiation channel

Given this reality, there was a growing belief that the Israeli war on Gaza had lost its objective and turned into an ongoing massacre. After more than a year and a half of genocide and complete destruction, the war failed to bring any change in the Palestinian position. The military operation shifted from pressure to systematic starvation and genocide.

Unlike the Biden administration, the Trump team quickly reached the conclusion that the war had reached a dead end. Now, Steve Witkoff is publicly voicing criticism, pointing out that the war is pointless, while Benjamin Netanyahu insists on continuing it. In contrast, Trump writes about the need to stop the “brutal war” in Gaza, positioning himself as a decisive leader who ends wars that erupted during his rival Biden’s term.

Israel excluded from the deal: A new reality

With Israel’s extremist government backing away from previous agreements and violating the ceasefire last January, mediators became increasingly frustrated. It appeared that Israel was trying to prolong the war indefinitely. This pushed mediators like Qatar to move forward with a partial deal between Hamas and the US, bypassing Netanyahu and possibly laying the groundwork for a broader deal in the future.

Israel was not part of this deal and wasn’t aware of its details. Netanyahu and his adviser Ron Dermer were informed afterward by Witkoff during their meeting. So, when Hamas announced the release of Edan Alexander, it had already fulfilled its part of the agreement. Immediately afterward, the American envoy headed to Tel Aviv to announce the next steps.

This arrangement was a direct diplomatic slap to Netanyahu’s Government, as it was completely bypassed in critical negotiations affecting security and sovereignty. This comes at a time when Netanyahu faces accusations of military and political failure due to his inability to bring back the hostages despite months of war adding more pressure to conduct a national inquiry or push for early elections.

The deal also deepened the divisions within the Israeli Government, especially with Netanyahu’s far-right allies like Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich opposing any concessions to Hamas. This could lead to the collapse of the war coalition and the withdrawal of these parties, signs of which are already beginning to show.

Growing internal crisis of trust

The Israeli public, especially the families of the hostages, has come to view political negotiation as more effective than military operations, revealing the state’s failure to protect its citizens. The deal also showed that the release of hostages was achieved through international political pressure, not military resolution, deepening the public’s mistrust in the army and government, and fuelling popular pressure to end the war at any cost.

Trump’s goals behind the deal

The only real guarantee for the deal’s continuity lies in Trump’s personal interest: he wants to calm the region in order to advance his political project, while also presenting himself as a strong leader capable of ending conflicts. This serves two goals: first, winning the Nobel Peace Prize; second, restoring “America’s prestige,” which he believes declined under Biden.

Hamas: Indirect gains and a political opening

Even though Hamas didn’t gain direct rewards from this agreement, it does register several important indirect gains if the deal holds:

1. Gradual humanitarian relief through provisions involving opening crossings, allowing aid in, and possibly halting airstrikes marking a major shift from previous weeks.

2. Laying the groundwork to end the war: If Israel sticks to the first phase of the deal (calm, withdrawal), it opens the door for a permanent ceasefire without disarming the resistance an important strategic gain for Hamas.

3. Conditional reconstruction: The agreement could initiate a reconstruction process under international supervision, potentially creating a new reality that lessens Israeli control over Gaza.

4. Weakening Israel’s narrative globally: The deal exposed Israel as the main obstacle to humanitarian solutions, while Hamas succeeded in imposing its conditions through negotiation hurting Israel’s global image and deepening its isolation.

5. A political defeat for Netanyahu: Even the Israeli opposition saw the deal as a political loss for Netanyahu’s Government, which failed to achieve its military goals despite its brutal war.

6. Political legitimacy for Hamas: An implicit recognition of Hamas as a political actor creates a new realism in how the region and the world engage with it.

Conclusion: A small step in a shifting landscape

The agreement between Hamas and the US might seem small, but it marks a pivotal step in a complex political landscape. It reflects Israel’s failure to achieve its goals and signals the beginning of a shift in the American stance, recognising that it can’t rely on an extremist Israeli government that drags everyone into a senseless war.

Hamas steps forward in the political scene, gaining opportunities to strengthen both its humanitarian and political standing, while Israel shakes from within and loses its role as the sole decision-maker in the conflict. The US still values its alliance with Israel, but has started building an alternative channel for dealing with the issue, one that serves its broader strategic interests and paves the way for a new balance in the region.

The US cannot be expected to sacrifice its strategic interests in the region for the sake of the narrow, ideological agenda of Israel’s far-right government, or the personal ambitions of Netanyahu and Smotrich. While Washington remains committed to Israel as an ally and to its role in regional dynamics, it may very well choose to bypass Netanyahu and his extremist coalition in order to safeguard the broader, long-term interests of both the US and Israel.