When Allah sits at the negotiation table: How to negotiate with Hamas - opinion

Negotiation is not just an art, it is a discipline rooted in understanding people. It  demands tactical skill, certainly, but equally a grasp of the other side’s inner world: their values, beliefs, fears, memories, and hopes.

To come to the table without  recognizing the other side’s frame of reference is to hold a conversation between parallel worlds - many words, very little understanding.

In the Western mindset, we assume that people act "rationally" - weighing alternatives  and costs, seeking outcomes in which "everyone wins". But in the Middle East - especially when facing religious-political actors like Hamas - this assumption is, at  best, incomplete and at worst, fundamentally mistaken.

Western negotiation theory rests on a familiar conceptual toolkit: Win-Win (reciprocal  benefit); Interests (focus on needs, not positions); Mutual Trust (building credibility and relationship); BATNA - Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (your  fallback if talks fail); ZOPA - Zone of Possible Agreement (the overlap where an  agreement is possible).

All of these assume that actors are rational, seek benefit, and  bargain based on interests.

But when you leave the negotiation halls of Harvard and sit at a table in Doha or  Cairo, you encounter a different paradigm: there is rationality - but it is rooted not  only in material gain, but in faith.

Here, the guiding question is not "what benefits  us?" but rather: "what serves the will of Allah?" Political interests become secondary  to religious legitimacy - and the entire logic of negotiation is reorganized accordingly.

In Western thinking, ZOPA - the Zone of Possible Agreement - is foundational: if there is overlap between interests, a deal is achievable; if there is no overlap, there  will be no deal. But with Hamas, ZOPA acquires another layer: Sharia - Islamic law  and its interpretation. Meaning: even when there is a political ZOPA, there may be no  religious ZOPA. And when the two collide, the religious dimension prevails.

The closest Islamic conceptual parallel is the framework of Maslaha-Mafsada - religious benefit vs. religious harm. Thus, ZOPA with Hamas is not only narrower - it  is fluid, shifting constantly, because it depends on religious-spiritual interpretation  rather than fixed strategic interests.

A proposal acceptable yesterday may become  forbidden today. To a Western negotiator, this appears inconsistent; to Hamas, it reflects fidelity to the divine.

In Western practice, BATNA is the anchor: if the offer on the table is worse than your  alternative, you walk away. For Hamas, this entire calculus is subordinated to  Maslaha-Mafsadah - religious benefit vs. religious harm. The question becomes: does  this action serve the will of Allah?

A central Islamic legal principle states: "Preventing harm takes precedence over  attaining benefit". Ibn Taymiyyah (1263-1328), one of Sunni Islam’s most influential  jurists, summarized it: "When faced with two evils that cannot both be avoided, one  must choose the lesser to prevent the greater". In negotiation language: one must  preserve faith capital, even at a significant political cost.

For example, after the 2014 "Tzuk Eitan" operation, Hamas agreed to a ceasefire  brokered by Egypt - but framed it not as compromise, but as Hudna: a temporary, religiously permitted pause for rest and reorganization, not an abandonment of jihad.

In other words: not a political concession, but a legally sanctioned religious maneuver within the Maslaha framework.

Thus, when Western negotiators speak of  "compromise", the religious discourse may interpret it as an impermissible surrender  of a divine obligation.

Success, therefore, is not measured first in material or political gains, but in alignment  with divine will - with worldly benefit evaluated afterward and only if it fits religious  command.

Negotiation, from this perspective, is not an exchange of interests but a test of spiritual fidelity. Often, therefore, the negotiation is not about solutions but about  purity of intention (Niyya).

In 2017, Hamas issued an updated policy document. Abroad, many interpreted it as  evidence of ideological moderation - less religious, more national. In reality, it was a  shift in messaging and framing, not in foundational doctrine.

The vocabulary  expanded, but the ideological spine - particularly commitment to jihad - remained  intact. In negotiation psychology, framing may influence perception without altering  substance. That is precisely what happened here.

Western negotiation is built on mutual trust - credibility, consistency, transparency,  and interpersonal reliability. If a party keeps its word, trust increases. It is behavior based: you did what you said - you are trustworthy.

But for Hamas, the prerequisite for negotiation is not practical trust, but spiritual  loyalty: adherence to religious authority and divine will. The core question is not "is this proposal beneficial?" but "is it faithful to Allah?" Thus, what seems "reasonable" or "efficient" may be rejected not because it lacks utility, but because it lacks religious legitimacy.

This also explains why positions acceptable yesterday may be rejected today: not  because interests changed - but because religious interpretation changed. To Western  eyes this appears inconsistent; to a believer, it reflects unwavering devotion to a  higher principle.

In the Middle East, negotiation is not merely a technique - it is a dialogue between  worldviews. The West speaks the language of utility; religious actors speak the  language of loyalty. Thus, aiming for Win-Win is insufficient.

Sometimes, the only  viable agreement is "Win-Iman" - one that satisfies religious legitimacy before  political practicality.

This is not identification or endorsement. It is intellectual empathy: the ability to  understand the logic behind the other side’s behavior even without accepting it.

When Allah sits at the negotiation table, the cards matter - but interpretation matters more.  In a landscape where faith shapes the rules of the game, the Western negotiator cannot  afford to ignore the religious logic underlying it.

To negotiate effectively, it is not enough to analyze the cards - one must understand  the hand that lays them. Whoever understands this is not abandoning his principles; he  is simply choosing to engage reality rather than imagination. And only there - in that  space of clarity - does genuine influence become possible.