In an opinion piece published April 22 in the New York Times, US special representative for international negotiations Jason Greenblatt wrote about human suffering in the Gaza Strip. The enclave endures long power cuts, shortages of medicine and food, high unemployment and a polluted shoreline.

After Greenblatt blamed Hamas for causing this suffering by being hostile to Israel, he concluded his piece by suggesting two scenarios to help Gaza: Isolate Hamas, or for Hamas to restore peace and stability by halting the violence and recognizing Israel. “Imagine if Hamas chose peace,” he wondered.

Greenblatt’s piece mostly reiterates the anti-Hamas US discourse and adopts the Israeli position. Yet, the conclusion of his article is unique in suggesting a new option for Hamas — choosing peace and rejecting violence. Such an option gives rise to many good questions, as it suggests that the United States plans to keep Hamas out of its so-called "deal of the century" peace plan, thus attenuating the movement’s possible opposition to it.

On April 23, Husam Badran, a member of Hamas’ political bureau in charge of international relations, tweeted, “Greenblatt is biased and blindly supports Israel. He is one of the causes of the problem and of the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza and the rest of Palestine.”