Despite the slogan never negotiate with terrorists, sometimes it is clever to

negotiate.
From Nigeria via China and Afghanistan to Israel, the world is preoccupied with
the question of whether or not it is useful and justified to negotiate with those
who are responsible for some of the most heinous crimes of
all: terrorism directed against unarmed civilians in the name of whatever political
ideology. The worldwide geographic parameters of the problem make it a
universal issue, not just the concern of specific countries affected by it at any
given moment. The problem is multi-dimensional, so the word useful relates to
the political aspects of it, whereas justified relates to the moral side of the
dilemma.
The first thing to take into consideration is the political aspect, and state
categorically that if negotiations with terrorists can lead to an acceptable
political compromise between them and their potential victims. I, for one, am for
it.
To be specific here: as an Israeli, it is my firm belief that if there was a chance to
come to a political solution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict with Hamas, a
proven and cruel terror organization, I would advocate it.
Simple? Not so. What I have in mind is to suggest that the cruelty and evil of
terrorists should not be a deterrent to talks with them, but some fundamental
political common ground should be: chiefly, the mutual recognition of the right to
exist.
That said, I can envisage a negotiation with Hamas, when the terrorists say they
regret the very existence of Israel, but grudgingly accept it as a fact, and then
put forward their claims with regard to any of the outstanding issues between
them and Israel. I suspect the gaps between the sides would prove unbridgeable
and will lead to nowhere, but it will still be worth the try.
However, so long as Hamas states its ideology and policy to be a complete
negation of any right of sovereign Jewish existence, what is the point of
negotiations? Normally, human beings do not negotiate their very existence with
others who do not want them to exist, and nor should states.
Can democracies enable a situation whereby soldiers and civilians are
kept in captivity and the option of negotiations with the captors does
not materialize? Easier asked than answered, and my answer is: Yes, it
is necessary to negotiate with terrorists in order to bring about the
release of hostages.
This is just one example of the political, mundane side of the problem. If, as we
are taught in any political science course, politics is the art of the possible, then
we can apply this truism to the question at hand. If negotiations with evil people
can help save the lives of innocents, why not negotiate?