Should Israel Negotiate with Terrorists? The Answer is Complicated

When terror becomes diplomacy’s last option, how does a democratic state retain its moral compass?

This is the cruel paradox confronting Israel today.

Since October 7, 2023, when Hamas unleashed its brutal and barbaric assault, the Jewish State has found itself at war, not only on the battlefield but in boardrooms, media rooms, and behind closed diplomatic doors.

Among the countless tragedies that followed, one issue continues to haunt both politicians and ordinary citizens alike: What should Israel do about the hostages?

Approximately 50 people — both living and dead — remain captive in Gaza, used as bargaining chips by a terrorist regime that thrives on civilian suffering. Hamas is not just holding people; it is holding the Israeli national conscience hostage.

Israel’s founding ethos has always been to bring every citizen and soldier home. But how do you uphold that sacred duty without empowering your enemy?

The world loves slogans: “We do not negotiate with terrorists.” But reality is a murkier battlefield than Hollywood or soundbites will admit.

Israel is not alone in this grey zone. The United States has spoken with the Taliban. European governments have discreetly paid ransoms. Red Cross convoys and Vatican mediators operate in shadows where diplomacy officially cannot.

So why is Israel judged so harshly when it faces the same impossible choices?

Because Israel is expected to act with perfect ethics even when surrounded by terrorists and murderers.

Despite popular assumptions, there is no binding international law that prohibits negotiation with terrorist groups. The United Nations urges states not to legitimize or finance terrorism. Hostage-taking is criminalized. But negotiation itself? That falls into a murky, political no-man’s land.

That ambiguity leaves countries to make deeply personal calculations. And for Israel, the calculus is always emotional, often painful, and rarely applauded.

Israel’s history offers stark examples. The 2011 Gilad Shalit exchange, in which one Israeli soldier was traded for over 1,000 Palestinian prisoners, many with blood on their hands, split the nation’s soul.

Some hailed it as a triumph of humanity. Others feared it was a costly encouragement to Hamas to kidnap again.

They were both right.

In practice, most governments do negotiate with terrorists. They just do it through third parties — such as Qatar, Egypt, Norway, and others. These mediators offer plausible deniability and soften the political fallout.

It’s a game of shadows: moral clarity sacrificed on the altar of realpolitik.

Israel has played this game too. Sometimes it succeeds in bringing people home. Sometimes it pays a terrifying price. But unlike authoritarian regimes, it has to answer to its people and to the families who refuse to accept “collateral damage” as a final verdict.

What makes the Israeli dilemma unique is its combination of vulnerability and moral expectation:

• A democracy surrounded by terror groups.
• A nation that values human life more than most of its enemies do.
• A state expected to fight like a Western power but judged like an empire

This is the Israeli paradox: being moral in an immoral world.

Is it wrong to speak with terrorists? Probably. Is it wrong to leave your citizens behind? Absolutely. Is there a path that avoids both sins? Tragically, not always.

So Israel walks the tightrope, every step scrutinized by a hostile international community and a grieving, demanding public.

Each decision is weighed not just in strategy, but in souls. In the faces of kidnapped children. In the eyes of mothers who refuse to stop waiting.

And while activists scream slogans and foreign leaders posture, the truth remains: In war, sometimes, there are no good choices — only the least terrible ones.

Sabine Sterk is the CEO of “Time to Stand Up for Israel.”