Trump special envoy Steve Witkoff got it exactly right Monday: Hamas must leave the Gaza Strip.

In a stark declaration on the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, the special envoy under the Trump administration, emphasized a crucial point: Hamas’s departure from the Gaza Strip is not just preferable, it is essential. He stated unequivocally that if Hamas refuses to leave, the ensuing conflict aimed at its eradication must persist. This sentiment aligns with the hardline stance previously expressed by former President Donald Trump, who forewarned that catastrophic repercussions awaited if Hamas did not release hostages. Witkoff's statements underpin a critical aspect of the current geopolitical landscape, which is characterized by negotiations oscillating between cease-fire phases, yet ultimately reveals a stark reality—regardless of diplomatic talks or agreements, Hamas cannot remain a viable entity in Gaza. The dynamics of the conflict illustrate a complex web of negotiations and military strategy. Currently, discussions revolve around shifting cease-fire arrangements, yet as Witkoff points out, the very existence of Hamas continues to pose a pervasive threat in the region. Despite being perceived as having a temporary reprieve—effectively enjoying a cease-fire—there is no indication from Hamas of an intent to disarm, surrender, or evacuate operatives from the border with Israel. In an unexpected move, a member of Team Trump, Adam Boehler, engaged directly with Hamas, breaking a long-standing diplomatic protocol against negotiating with terrorist organizations. This move has been met with significant backlash from Israeli officials, who accuse the U.S. of undermining their position and potentially compromising their security. This has raised concerns about a divide forming between U.S. and Israeli strategies; Secretary of State Antony Blinken noted the dangers of Hamas perceiving any disunity, which could embolden their stance further. The comments made by Boehler that Hamas negotiators were 'pretty nice guys' epitomize the dangers of underestimating the militant group, prompting him to later clarify that they are, indeed, 'by definition bad people.' Such missteps highlight the sensitivity required when navigating these turbulent waters. In response to Hamas's actions, Israel has begun tightening measures by cutting off essential supplies and electricity to Gaza. However, it is widely believed that mere sanctions may not suffice to uproot Hamas from its entrenched position. A multi-faceted approach that combines pressure, military readiness, and diplomatic engagement appears to be necessary. In conclusion, as the situation unfolds, it’s clear that the elimination of Hamas’s presence in Gaza is deemed non-negotiable by many in the U.S. and Israeli leadership. The seeming impasse raises critical questions about the efficacy of current strategies and the potential for a renewed military campaign. This analysis and commentary have been reviewed by artificial intelligence for accuracy and relevance to ongoing discussions surrounding U.S.-Middle East relations and the conflict with Hamas.