Is there a possibility that the United States could negotiate directly with Hamas to end the Palestinian genocide in Gaza, without the mediation of the genocidal state of Israel? If the Trump administration has already agreed to collaborate with the leaders of the Sinaloa Cartel, also designated as a terrorist group, could it do the same with Hamas leaders to resolve the crisis in the Middle East?
This question arises from Hamas’s recent release by the American-Israeli host Edan Alexander.
Theoretical feasibility, but practical obstacles: The United States could attempt to negotiate directly with Hamas, as diplomacy is not inherently constrained by the need to include Israel; However, in practice, this is extremely unlikely due to the US’s strategic relationship with Israel and domestic political constraints in the US. The US State Department’s designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization imposes significant legal and political barriers to any direct dialogue. The possibility remains semi-open, after the US government overlooked the above by agreeing to the collaboration of several leaders of Mexico’s Sinaloa Cartel.
Dependence on Israeli approval: Both emphasize that US foreign policy in the Middle East is deeply aligned with Israeli interests. Any US attempt to negotiate with Hamas without Israel’s consent would face strong opposition from the pro-Israel lobby in Washington and would likely be politically untenable. Israel exercises a de facto veto over US decisions in this context, given its role as a key ally.
Limited historical precedent: There have been instances in the past where the US has had indirect contacts with Hamas, often through third parties such as Qatar or Egypt, but these have been minimal and do not amount to formal negotiations. There is no clear precedent for direct and open negotiations between the US and Hamas, which reinforces the difficulty of this scenario.
Motivations and Consequences: Even if Donald Trump wanted to negotiate directly with Hamas (for example, to advance a ceasefire in Gaza or resolve humanitarian issues), doing so without Israel could be interpreted as weakening Israel’s position in the region, something the US has historically avoided. Maté argues that this could, in theory, pressure Israel to be more flexible in negotiations, but it could also escalate diplomatic tensions between Washington and Tel Aviv.
Central Conclusion: The answer to the question “Can the US negotiate directly with Hamas, bypassing Israel?” is NO.
Although there is no absolute impediment in terms of diplomatic sovereignty, political, legal, and strategic realities make this practically impossible in the current context. Both conclude that any meaningful negotiation with Hamas will likely still require Israel’s participation, or at least tacit consent.