Back in 1989, Britain’s then-ambassador to Tunisia, Stephen Day, received a call from his American counterpart, Robert Pelletreau. As Day recalled to me, he was somewhat surprised to be asked: “Do you have Yasser Arafat’s telephone number?”
This was the moment that the US determined it would publicly engage with the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), which it had labelled as a terrorist group.
I was reminded of this when learning about one of the most stunning moves in the first 50 days of the Trump administration.
Days after President Donald Trump unveiled his plan to ethnically cleanse Gaza by emptying it of Palestinians permanently, US officials were engaging in talks with Hamas in Doha.
Where was the shock? This went largely unnoticed, yet its implications in ripping up decades of settled US policy could be profound.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
It has been a sacred tenet of US policy never to talk at any level with Hamas, which it designated as a terrorist group in 1997, well before most European states followed suit. It was career-ending to even to call for such talks.
The mantra has been that the US “does not negotiate with terrorists”. Leaving aside the thorny question of who is a terrorist, this has been more honoured in the breach than the observance. In 1995, then-President Bill Clinton met then-Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams, despite his party’s association with the IRA, which was considered a terrorist organisation at the time.
Israel furious
Regarding groups that confront Israel, however, the US tends to adhere rigidly to the boycott. But this all ended in Doha last month, as US hostage negotiator Adam Boehler engaged with Hamas.
These talks were not indirect nor mediated through third parties, but face to face. In addition to a prisoner exchange, Boehler said that Hamas offered a five-to-10-year ceasefire, highlighting that these talks were hardly limited in scope.
The Israeli leadership is seething, fearing a separate US policy on Hamas. The Trump administration does not apologise. When Boehler was interviewed on CNN, he pushed back: “We’re not an agent of Israel.”
Netanyahu has been given a timely reminder that Trump is supportive of Israel, but by no means beholden to it
Israeli leaders might wish to consider history. Former prime ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir were both designated terrorists by the British for mass fatality attacks, but this did not stop Britain and other states from engaging with them.
Netanyahu has been given a timely reminder that Trump is supportive of Israel, but by no means beholden to it. Trump’s agenda is “America First”, or more accurately, “Trump First”. Nothing is sacred. That this may infuriate some of his key donors, like Miriam Adelson, never seems to bother him.
Lazy analysis has often portrayed Trump as a pro-Israel-come-what-may-type, very much in the mould of his predecessor, Joe Biden. Though Trump green-lights Israel’s decimation of Palestinians, he is far more capable than Biden of acting against Israeli wishes if it suits him.
Israeli leaders will be fretting about what Trump may do next. Will he agree to a deal with Hamas without their consent? Will he kickstart talks with Tehran without their agreement? Former President Barack Obama opened a secret channel with Iran. Trump may do this openly, but without consultation.
Making deals
For all the criticism levelled at Trump, he deserves some praise for making one of the smarter US policy moves in ages, although this comes with a host of caveats. Trump wants to make deals; you do not do this by banning contact with one of the parties to a conflict.
So who would Trump not talk to? Negotiating with Hamas suggests he may talk to Hezbollah or the Houthis if he feels the circumstances demand it. Trump has indicated that talking to Iran, despite his “maximum pressure” policy, is not off the table.
And who can forget Trump’s first term, when he shifted from calling North Korean leader Kim Jong-un “Little Rocket Man” and threatening to “totally destroy” North Korea, to the unlikeliest of bromances. Trump told one rally, “we fell in love”.
What are Washington’s traditional allies to make of this? Countries such as Germany, France and the UK have steered well clear of contact with Hamas, adhering to the “Quartet principles”, which stipulate no contact with the group until it renounces violence, recognises Israel and abides by all previous peace deals.
Notably, Israel has not renounced violence, and has in fact escalated this to genocide in Gaza. It not only rejects previous agreements like the Oslo Accords, but undermines them and opposes any move towards a Palestinian state.
Unlocking possibilities
Trump’s moves will be welcomed in some quarters. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer appointed Jonathan Powell as his national security adviser last November. After his time as former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s chief of staff, Powell wrote a book titled Talking to Terrorists: How to End Armed Conflicts, in which he even posited that talks with the Islamic State group should not be ruled out.
Powell’s key arguments are pertinent. Based on his experience in helping to resolve the Northern Ireland conflict, he argues that all too often, states waste huge amounts of blood, treasure and time in avoiding talking to such groups, but always end up doing so eventually. His thesis is to get to that point far sooner, citing examples around the globe over decades where this would have made a difference.
Can this approach work in the Middle East? Excluding Hamas has hardly reaped any obvious benefits. Parties such as Egypt and Qatar have been engaging with Hamas, while the US and European actors have had to rely on third parties to report back.
One argument is that talking to groups like Hamas gives them undeserved credibility. This might be the case if you invite them to the White House or Downing Street, but less so when they are meeting envoys away from cameras.
Another argument is that by rewarding violence, it may encourage more. But talking should not be seen as a reward.
Engaging with Hamas does not equal an endorsement of Hamas. It is just a clear-eyed assessment that talking, even between the most hostile of parties, can yield some results and unlock unforeseen possibilities.
History shows that Trump is – for once – spot on. As former Labour leader Hugh Gaitskell once said: “All terrorists, at the invitation of the government, end up with drinks in the Dorchester.” Updated to 2025, it just may be Trump Tower, and not a Park Lane hotel.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.