Last week, senior Hamas and United States officials expressed to the media their mutual readiness to participate in a “dialogue”. The slitents by senior hamas leader mousa abu Marzouk and us prepaidal midede East Envoy Steve Witkoff Most Likely Meant to Test the Water For Future Diplomatic Moves, Perhaps Due to them Ed Recography that ISRAEL’s Current War-Making Frenzy in The Region, You COUD Soon Reach Iran is bad news for all concerned.

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly showed his intention to end wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, which is detracting from his greatest plans to reconfigure American global relations; Hamas has seized an opportunity to demonstrate during the ceasefire that it still controls Gaza and is still an important political group among the Palestinians.

In this context, the sudden tendency must be taken by the United States and Hamas towards “dialogue” seriously and carefully exploring it because it is possible in the interest of all concerned in the Middle East and beyond.

Certainly, there is a wide gap between the actors: Washington was deeply complicit in destroying the genocide of Israel in Gaza, while the Hamas Resistance Movement is widely considered by most of the West. But this is exactly the reason that they should be met, speak, and define each other’s positions accurately and the possibility of shifting from militarization to the peace industry. The ongoing ceasefire is an opportunity to launch this process, which is why completing its three stages should now be a top priority.

Effective Israeli propaganda has clarified Hamas in the West as a reckless terrorist group and a spark that wants to destroy Israel. However, the truth is that Hamas was a successful Palestinian political organization because it combined the three decisive dynamics that most of the 14 million Palestinians support: the initial and continuous resistance against Israeli colonialism that supports the United States; Political activity to form a national political program supported by all Palestinian factions; And pragmatism that constantly explores how to resolve the conflict safely with Zionism.

Understanding Hamas and its attitudes does not mean its formal awareness, adopting its views, or refraining from criticizing its militancy, which usually reflects the global definition of the permitted armed resistance to the occupation, and is sometimes proportional to the definition of terrorism against civilians.

Like most liberation movements, Hamas exerts simultaneously militarized, resistance, terrorism, and political pragmatism. The realization and separation of these strands is the key to involving the movement on the road towards a peaceful solution to the conflict with Israel – that is, if an Israeli government appears from ever, it truly seeking a permanent peace.

The US dialogue can now clarify whether both of them seek peace. My interactions for life with Palestinian leaders indicate that the most important feature of Hamas and the leadership of the entire Palestine Liberation Organization was their willingness for a long time to establish a Palestinian state that coexists in peace with Israel in its borders in 1967, which is equivalent to mutual approval.

Hamas has officially expressed informally, repeatedly and repeatedly, this opinion, which the official nature could be unanimous in peace offers to Israel since 2002. These positions were confirmed again last week in interview By the official Hamas official Al -Qaed Naim.

A peaceful decision has never occurred because the IDPs have constantly ignored these offers by Hamas and all other Palestinian groups.

Canadian researcher Coulter Lawrs shows in his research how the American -Israeli challenge has been the main obstacle since the seventies of the last century to implement the international -based international consensus on a decision from the two countries from the conflict. He also wrote in 2023: “In January 1976, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) offered negotiating the conditions for the consensus of the“ two countries ”. With the support of Washington, Israel rejected the good Palestinian proposal […] In fact, the bad Israeli -American rejection is, in fact, “an obstacle to peace.”

This refusal, with the uncompromising Israeli aggression, reflects the Israeli Zionist goal since 1920 to expel the largest possible number of Palestinians from the lands of their ancestors and to give the official nature to exclusive Jewish sovereignty over all historical Palestine.

With the deterioration of the conflict and its expansion throughout the region, from the Arab side, the conditions that accepted Hamas remained on the table. It is difficult, but realistic. It requires Zionism to define its borders and end its colonial irritation in the region, and the Palestinians to officially accept the state on only 22 percent of historical Palestine.

All agreements that decrease the war in favor of peace are difficult and require strict changes in politics from all parties. The end of the apartheid regime in South Africa and the American wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan are few examples of the difficulty of concessions for peace – but also the extent of vitality.

If Witkoff and Abu Marzouk are talking about their governments, as I think they were, this is the time to move forward in a dialogue in the United States and ignore the shelves everywhere, especially in the United States and Israel, who will try to stop this important step from occurring.

Any dialogue should be avoided above all the errors of Oslo operation of 1993 and other peace -making attempts, which have been replaced by endless conversions to concessions on both sides, while Israeli colonial expansions and series continued with the explicit support of the United States.

We must work additional work to take advantage of this opportunity, following the expansion of wars and a lot of suffering, to transform the entire Middle East from its current catastrophic path to militarization towards coexistence in the future between all states.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the editorial island.