Let’s Negotiate with Terrorists

 

Biden has offered his latest harebrained idea regarding the Gaza War:

Biden administration officials have discussed potentially negotiating a unilateral deal with Hamas to secure the release of five Americans being held hostage in Gaza if current cease-fire talks involving Israel fail, according to two current senior U.S. officials and two former senior U.S. officials.

How many different ways can you spell “stupid”?

Taking this step would be a slap in the face of Netanyahu. It entails the denigration of our trusted ally, which Hamas would celebrate. And there’s that pesky U.S. law that says we’re not supposed to negotiate with terrorists.

But it also raises innumerable questions: What can the U.S. offer Hamas that would be meaningful to them to release the hostages? What are the criteria for determining that the cease-fire negotiations have failed? Why should Hamas care what the U.S. wants, anyway? How will this action help Israel in the conducting of the war? Why isn’t the U.S. demanding the release of all the hostages; are the Israeli hostages less valuable?

Biden doesn’t have a clue about the best thing he can do to help Israel finish this war, which may or may not include the release of hostages.

Get out of the way.

Published in Foreign Policy
This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 53 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    I half-heard a radio report that there were negotiations between the US and Hamas that Israel was not privy to. I haven’t looked it up, as I don’t think I have enough info. Is that concerning this nonsense, or is this fresh nonsense?

    • #1
  2. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Percival (View Comment):

    I half-heard a radio report that there were negotiations between the US and Hamas that Israel was not privy to. I haven’t looked it up, as I don’t think I have enough info. Is that concerning this nonsense, or is this fresh nonsense?

    To my knowledge, they haven’t begun negotiations; they’ve just put out the idea. Let’s hope that’s the end of it.

    • #2
  3. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Here is one tiny piece of the puzzle as to why many Americans, who are not pro-Hamas, but also can no longer pro-Israel, are so critical of Israel:

    Last week the survivors of The USS Liberty “celebrated” the 57th anniversary of their naval ship being deliberately attacked by the IDF.

    For two hours, the service people were strafed, napalmed, and torpedoes.

    The Israel Intel people had enough “goods” on LBJ that as president, he quashed most mentions of this horrendous deliberate attack that normally would have occurred after such a catastrophic military action against the USA.

    Only in the past 15 years has it been possible for crew men to come forward. Documentaries have been made about the entire incident and we now know:

    1: Prior to the attack, the men who were off duty were sunbathing on the deck. They witnessed Israeli planes flying over them, as they saw the markings on those planes.

    2: Since planes flew over several times, sometimes the Americans waved at the Israelis.

    3: A short time later, unmarked planes flew overhead and this time the attack was on.

    4: One IDF member radioed in “This is an American ship. I should not be attacking it.”
     He was told by the higher ups to follow orders.

    5: For two hours, the people aboard the Liberty were strafed. They were napalmed. A torpedo was launched by an Israeli ship and it hit the Liberty.

    6. If an American military ship had not intervened, we now know the Liberty was to be sunk and then the “incident” would be reported by Israeli intel with statements that the Egyptians had attacked our naval vessel.

    7. So the overall plan was to slaughter their “ally’s” service people in order to bring America into their side of the 7 day war.

    Combine the above with so many other videos that show how the hard liners in Israel have had their way since the early 1980’s, and then the attitudes of many people here in the USA begin to change.  The hard liners in Israel  have been able to strengthen their hand to the extent that Netanyahu himself created Hamas, in much the same way the the USA created Al Queda.

    In the 1980’s, we had no internet to inform us of the deep dark secrets concerning how much control that Israel has held over the USA. But that is no longer the case.

    Now add in a recent Tucker Carlson interview with Congressman Thomas Massie and more changes in attitude will occur. Massie reported on how every Republican in Congress, with the exception of himself, now has an “AIPAC handler.” Why is that allowed?

    Silly me – these days if an outfit announces they have a 100 million dollar slush fund to throw the way of candidates for office who do their bidding, why wouldn’t it be allowed, right?

    Such situations also keep arising because for anyone questioning anything with regards to Israel, the convenient label of “anti-semite” is immediately utilized.

    Of course the definition is changing – where being an “anti-semite” once meant that some individual  hated Jews, it now means that the person – even a Jewish person –  is someone that the Zionists want, and need, to have censored.

     

     

    • #3
  4. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):
    The hard liners in Israel  have been able to strengthen their hand to the extent that Netanyahu himself created Hamas, in much the same way the the USA created Al Queda.

    You get the Conspiracy Medal of the Day, CarolJoy. Netanyahu created Hamas? Seriously?

    • #4
  5. Dr. Bastiat Member
    Dr. Bastiat
    @drbastiat

    Susan Quinn: Taking this step would be a slap in the face of Netanyahu and includes the denigration of our trusted ally

    Susan Quinn: What can the U.S. offer Hamas that would be meaningful to them?

    Democrats don’t care about Hamas, or the Palestinians, or blacks, or gays, or any other victim group.  I don’t think there’s malice – just a lack of interest and a lack of empathy.  

    Democrats do care about Israel, though.  They hate Israel and they hate Jews.  

    If you disagree with my assertions, I would point out that if they actually didn’t care about Palestinians, and if they actually did hate Jews, what would the Democrats do?  They would do everything that they have already done.  It’s circumstantial evidence, I know.  But it’s overwhelming circumstantial evidence.  Added to their rhetoric, I don’t see how either assertion can be seriously disputed.

    So Biden’s proposal to Hamas is not stupid.  It makes perfect sense.  From the standpoint of Democrats.

    It will hurt Israel.  Who cares what it does for Hamas – whatever.  It makes perfect sense.  For Democrats.

    As usual, the interests of Democrats do not align with the interests of America or the interests of good in the world.

    • #5
  6. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: Taking this step would be a slap in the face of Netanyahu and includes the denigration of our trusted ally

    Susan Quinn: What can the U.S. offer Hamas that would be meaningful to them?

    Democrats don’t care about Hamas, or the Palestinians, or blacks, or gays, or any other victim group. I don’t think there’s malice – just a lack of interest and a lack of empathy.

    Democrats do care about Israel, though. They hate Israel and they hate Jews.

    If you disagree with my assertions, I would point out that if they actually didn’t care about Palestinians, and if they actually did hate Jews, what would the Democrats do? They would do everything that they have already done. It’s circumstantial evidence, I know. But it’s overwhelming circumstantial evidence. Added to their rhetoric, I don’t see how either assertion can be seriously disputed.

    So Biden’s proposal to Hamas is not stupid. It makes perfect sense. From the standpoint of Democrats.

    It will hurt Israel. Who cares what it does for Hamas – whatever. It makes perfect sense. For Democrats.

    As usual, the interests of Democrats do not align with the interests of America or the interests of good in the world.

    All sad but true. 

    • #6
  7. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):
    The hard liners in Israel have been able to strengthen their hand to the extent that Netanyahu himself created Hamas, in much the same way the the USA created Al Queda.

    You get the Conspiracy Medal of the Day, CarolJoy. Netanyahu created Hamas? Seriously?

     

    “Israel started Hamas. It was a project of Shin Bet.”
    – Charles Freeman, US diplomat and ambassador (2006)

    https://swprs.org/why-israel-created-hamas/

    https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/10/a-brief-history-of-the-netanyahu-hamas-alliance/
    From the above article: The MO of Netanyahu’s policy since his return to the Prime Minister’s Office in 2009 has and continues to be, on the one hand, bolstering the rule of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and, on the other, weakening the Palestinian Authority.
    His return to power was accompanied by a complete turnaround from the policy of his predecessor, Ehud Olmert, who sought to end the conflict through a peace treaty with the most moderate Palestinian leader – PA President Mahmoud Abbas.

    ##############################################################

    India Today is not reporting on Netty creating Hamas but on another facet: how the funding that went to Hamas went thru with Netanyahu’s approval:

    https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/israel-helped-funnel-qatar-money-to-fund-hamas-netanyahu-palestinian-state-gaza-war-2456157-2023-11-01
    Why Netanyahu helped fund Hamas and how that backfired for Israel
    If Benjamin Netanyahu-led Israel didn’t create Frankenstein’s monster, it for sure helped nourish it. This is why Israel funneled Qatari money to Gaza as Hamas lulled it into a false sense of security and its citizens paid a heavy price for the miscalculation.

     

    • #7
  8. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):
    This is why Israel funneled Qatari money to Gaza as Hamas lulled it into a false sense of security and its citizens paid a heavy price for the miscalculation.

    Give it a rest, CarolJoy. Your explanations are becoming more absurd, link by link.

    They even have a post that the Boston Marathon was “staged.” Please.

    • #8
  9. Ray Gunner Coolidge
    Ray Gunner
    @RayGunner

    Susan Quinn: But it also raises innumerable questions: What can the U.S. offer Hamas that would be meaningful to them to release the hostages? What is the criteria for determining that the cease-fire negotiations have failed? Why should Hamas care what the U.S. wants, anyway? How will this action help Israel in the conducting of the war? Why isn’t the U.S. demanding the release of all the hostages; are the Israeli hostages less valuable?

    Some suggested answers: 

    Q:  What can the U.S. offer Hamas that would be meaningful to them to release the hostages?

    A:  Money.  Like the $6B Biden released to Iran for the release of five American hostages.

    Q: What is the criteria for determining that the cease-fire negotiations have failed?

    A:  When Israel unreasonably rejects the condition that Hamas stay in power and retain the capability to attack Israelis from Gaza again.

    Q:  Why should Hamas care what the U.S. wants, anyway? 

    A.  Money; prestige; under cutting Israel.

    Q: How will this action help Israel in the conducting of the war?

    A: Not relevant.  It will help Biden win Michigan, which is all that matters. 

    Q:  Why isn’t the U.S. demanding the release of all the hostages; are the Israeli hostages less valuable?

    A:  Demanding the release of Israeli hostages carries an implied criticism of Hamas–that taking Israelis hostage is morally wrong, which is a criticism of Hamas that upsets voting age female American college students and ethnically Arab Michiganders. 

     

     

    • #9
  10. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Ray Gunner (View Comment):
    Some suggested answers: 

    Ray, what a creative approach! I would have never considered them! And thanks for making me smile–I needed that.

    • #10
  11. Steve Fast Member
    Steve Fast
    @SteveFast

    Biden has already negotiated with Russia and Iran for the release of hostages (e.g. Brittany Griner for Viktor But). Why not Hamas?

    • #11
  12. DonG (CAGW is a Scam) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Scam)
    @DonG

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):
    Last week the survivors of The USS Liberty “celebrated” the 57th anniversary of their naval ship being deliberately attacked by the IDF.

    This is misleading.  The boat was attacked during the 6-Day war accidentally while near Egypt.   The IDF apologized and paid compensation.   A tragedy. 

    • #12
  13. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    Isn’t the easiest thing for the Biden administration to offer to Hamas a cessation of military aid to Israel? 

    Why would the Biden administration care about any of your other questions? 

    The Biden administration’s goal seems to be to allow Hamas to rebuild. Since Hamas’ stated goal is to attack Israel again and again, I assume the administration finds that goal acceptable. 

    • #13
  14. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Steve Fast (View Comment):

    Biden has already negotiated with Russia and Iran for the release of hostages (e.g. Brittany Griner for Viktor But). Why not Hamas?

    Is Iran designated a terror organization? (I know it is one, but that’s a technicality I suppose). Have we negotiated with Iran recently on hostages or is this back under Jimmy Carter?

    • #14
  15. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):
    Why would the Biden administration care about any of your other questions? 

    Good point. They don’t seem to care much about Israel.

    • #15
  16. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Steve Fast (View Comment):

    Biden has already negotiated with Russia and Iran for the release of hostages (e.g. Brittany Griner for Viktor But). Why not Hamas?

    Doing a bad thing for a third time does not win you points for consistency.

    • #16
  17. Steve Fast Member
    Steve Fast
    @SteveFast

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Steve Fast (View Comment):

    Biden has already negotiated with Russia and Iran for the release of hostages (e.g. Brittany Griner for Viktor But). Why not Hamas?

    Is Iran designated a terror organization? (I know it is one, but that’s a technicality I suppose). Have we negotiated with Iran recently on hostages or is this back under Jimmy Carter?

    In September 2023, the Biden administration agreed to release $6B held in escrow as electricity payments from Iraq if Iran would release five wrongfully imprisoned American citizens.

    Currently Iran, Syria, Cuba, and North Korean are on the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terror.

    • #17
  18. She Member
    She
    @She

    Susan Quinn: Taking this step would be a slap in the face of Netanyahu and includes the denigration of our trusted ally, which Hamas would celebrate.

    I think Biden probably regards this as a feature, rather than a bug, and as an outcome that would be welcomed by a currently problematic voting contingent here in the US.  I doubt there’s more to it than that.

    Susan Quinn: What can the U.S. offer Hamas that would be meaningful to them to release the hostages?

    See above: A “slap in the face,” diminishment, “denigration” and embarrassment for Netanyahu and Israel, and a clear international signal that any meaningful allyship between the US and Israel is over.  That just might be enough.

    • #18
  19. MikeMcCarthy Coolidge
    MikeMcCarthy
    @MikeMcCarthy

    Biden administration officials have discussed potentially negotiating a unilateral deal with Hamas to secure the release of five Americans being held hostage in Gaza

    Apart from all of the above points… Waiting eight months to seek the return of your citizens seems somewhat inert. They just don’t care.

    • #19
  20. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    MikeMcCarthy (View Comment):

    Biden administration officials have discussed potentially negotiating a unilateral deal with Hamas to secure the release of five Americans being held hostage in Gaza

    Apart from all of the above points… Waiting eight months to seek the return of your citizens seems somewhat inert. They just don’t care.

    The Biden administration seems generally uninterested in Americans around the world. Americans who recently ran into legal troubles in one of the Caribbean vacation islands (forgotten ammunition in their luggage) have complained that they were unable to get any meaningful response from the U.S. national government to help navigate their predicaments.

    One of a couple of reasons I am avoiding international travel is that I have lost confidence that the United States government under the Biden administration will have any interest in my wellbeing should something happen to me while overseas. It is no longer the case that a U.S. passport works magic around the globe. 

    • #20
  21. Steve Fast Member
    Steve Fast
    @SteveFast

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    The Biden administration seems generally uninterested in Americans around the world. Americans who recently ran into legal troubles in one of the Caribbean vacation islands (forgotten ammunition in their luggage) have complained that they were unable to get any meaningful response from the U.S. national government to help navigate their predicaments.

    If they had had drugs in their luggage, they would have gotten immediate help from the Biden administration. But ammo in your luggage just proves you are a MAGA Republican gun nut and thus have no rights.

    • #21
  22. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    Maybe I’m being pedantic (I am a lawyer after all), but all the news accounts of this idea use the word “unilateral.”

    Unilateral means (literally) “one sided.” A unilateral action is action taken by one party alone, with no other party or parties involved. A “unilateral” response to Hamas would be capitulation to Hamas demands.

    “Unilateral negotiations” is an oxymoron. “Negotiations” inherently involve at least two people or entities. By definition negotiations are at least “bilateral,” and not “unilateral.” Negotiations involving three or more parties (such as Hamas, the United States, and Israel) are “trilateral” or “multilateral.” 

    The use of the term “unilateral” so consistently in all the reports of this idea causes me concern that the plan is to capitulate to Hamas and “hope” that Hamas in response releases the hostages. 

    • #22
  23. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):
    One of a couple of reasons I am avoiding international travel is that I have lost confidence that the United States government under the Biden administration will have any interest in my wellbeing should something happen to me while overseas. It is no longer the case that a U.S. passport works magic around the globe. 

    I fully agree, FST. We have Americans who are languishing in prison in Russia. Unless you’re a black lesbian basketball player.

    • #23
  24. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Maybe I’m being pedantic (I am a lawyer after all), but all the news accounts of this idea use the word “unilateral.”

    Unilateral means (literally) “one sided.” A unilateral action is action taken by one party alone, with no other party or parties involved. A “unilateral” response to Hamas would be capitulation to Hamas demands.

    “Unilateral negotiations” is an oxymoron. “Negotiations” inherently involve at least two people or entities. By definition negotiations are at least “bilateral,” and not “unilateral.” Negotiations involving three or more parties (such as Hamas, the United States, and Israel) are “trilateral” or “multilateral.”

    The use of the term “unilateral” so consistently in all the reports of this idea causes me concern that the plan is to capitulate to Hamas and “hope” that Hamas in response releases the hostages.

    You could be right, but They probably just think “unilateral” means “without Israel participating.”

    • #24
  25. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):
    The use of the term “unilateral” so consistently in all the reports of this idea causes me concern that the plan is to capitulate to Hamas and “hope” that Hamas in response releases the hostages

    That would not surprise me. Although I don’t know if we should assume they know what they’re doing. Period.

    • #25
  26. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Maybe I’m being pedantic (I am a lawyer after all), but all the news accounts of this idea use the word “unilateral.”

    Unilateral means (literally) “one sided.” A unilateral action is action taken by one party alone, with no other party or parties involved. A “unilateral” response to Hamas would be capitulation to Hamas demands.

    “Unilateral negotiations” is an oxymoron. “Negotiations” inherently involve at least two people or entities. By definition negotiations are at least “bilateral,” and not “unilateral.” Negotiations involving three or more parties (such as Hamas, the United States, and Israel) are “trilateral” or “multilateral.”

    The use of the term “unilateral” so consistently in all the reports of this idea causes me concern that the plan is to capitulate to Hamas and “hope” that Hamas in response releases the hostages.

    You could be right, but They probably just think “unilateral” means “without Israel participating.”

    Which would just extend the reputation of the Biden administration as full of ignorant and/or stupid people who have no idea what they are saying or what they are doing. 

    • #26
  27. Chuck Coolidge
    Chuck
    @Chuckles

    Could well be wrong, but if memory serves, once upon a time we would simply not negotiate with terrorists  – nor were US hostages allowed to continue as hostages.   Seems like there was a movie about that?

    • #27
  28. Doug Watt Member
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    There is no common ground between Hamas and Israel for that matter there is no common ground between Hamas and any civilized society. You need common ground to reach any solution whether it’s a debate or a war.

    There is deep divide between Hamas and their western supporters and western civilization. In our own country Marxists see Hamas as a lever to create violent chaos in Europe and North America.

    We have our own elitists that are quietly funding Hamas demonstrations because they hate Jews. I’ll let you in on a little secret they hate observant Catholics, as well as Christians because they don’t worship the secular state.

    The Hamas demonstrators in the US pretend they care about children in Gaza, yet they promote abortion and the mutilation of children because they cannot accept the difference between men and women.

    You cannot negotiate with people who have nothing in common with you. You can only tell Hamas that you view them as the butchers they are, and you will meet violence with violence until they are no longer a threat.

    • #28
  29. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Maybe I’m being pedantic (I am a lawyer after all), but all the news accounts of this idea use the word “unilateral.”

    Unilateral means (literally) “one sided.” A unilateral action is action taken by one party alone, with no other party or parties involved. A “unilateral” response to Hamas would be capitulation to Hamas demands.

    “Unilateral negotiations” is an oxymoron. “Negotiations” inherently involve at least two people or entities. By definition negotiations are at least “bilateral,” and not “unilateral.” Negotiations involving three or more parties (such as Hamas, the United States, and Israel) are “trilateral” or “multilateral.”

    The use of the term “unilateral” so consistently in all the reports of this idea causes me concern that the plan is to capitulate to Hamas and “hope” that Hamas in response releases the hostages.

    You could be right, but They probably just think “unilateral” means “without Israel participating.”

    Which would just extend the reputation of the Biden administration as full of ignorant and/or stupid people who have no idea what they are saying or what they are doing.

    True, but, what term would be more suitable?  “Bilateral” is probably what they should use, rather than “multilateral” or even “trilateral”.  But that would need to be explained, maybe every time they use it.

    • #29
  30. Chuck Coolidge
    Chuck
    @Chuckles

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Maybe I’m being pedantic (I am a lawyer after all), but all the news accounts of this idea use the word “unilateral.”

    Unilateral means (literally) “one sided.” A unilateral action is action taken by one party alone, with no other party or parties involved. A “unilateral” response to Hamas would be capitulation to Hamas demands.

    “Unilateral negotiations” is an oxymoron. “Negotiations” inherently involve at least two people or entities. By definition negotiations are at least “bilateral,” and not “unilateral.” Negotiations involving three or more parties (such as Hamas, the United States, and Israel) are “trilateral” or “multilateral.”

    The use of the term “unilateral” so consistently in all the reports of this idea causes me concern that the plan is to capitulate to Hamas and “hope” that Hamas in response releases the hostages.

    You could be right, but They probably just think “unilateral” means “without Israel participating.”

    Which would just extend the reputation of the Biden administration as full of ignorant and/or stupid people who have no idea what they are saying or what they are doing.

    I wish!  But what I think is that they know full well what they are saying, and doing .  They possess malice aforethought. 

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.