There was a time in American, where the phrase “We do not negotiate with terrorists” was commonplace. This was not merely a moral stance; it was a deeply considered and carefully crafted strategy. There is nothing good to be gained in negotiating with terrorists. If they were reasonable, they would never resort to terror. Terror is the tool of those who have rejected the rules of civilised society and seek to impose their demands through fear and bloodshed. Negotiating with such people not only grants them legitimacy but sends a clear message: violence works.

Negotiation is fundamentally a process of give and take. Any concession granted to terrorists strengthens them and increases their incentive to continue and escalate terrorism. When a terrorist group sees that hostage-taking, bombings or missile attacks can yield concessions, why would it abandon the method? This simple yet powerful logic underpinned the old American policy that has now been forgotten in some circles.

History is full of lessons showing how negotiations with terrorist dictators ends in disaster. Talks with Saddam Hussein in the 1990s and beyond failed to curb his ambitions; he continued his weapons programs and internal repression until he was finally stopped by military force. Gaddafi, after negotiations and agreements that lulled the West into a false sense of security, remained a supporter of terrorist groups, and his regime collapsed only through revolution and intervention. The most famous example remains Neville Chamberlain’s negotiations with Adolf Hitler at Munich in 1938. The policy of “appeasement,” by granting concessions to Hitler, not only failed to delay war but made it more inevitable and far bloodier. Hitler grew stronger, his ambitions expanded, and........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)