negotiating with terrorists

[CPL.Luke]

the policy of every country to my knowledge when faced with a terrorist group has been to not negotiate with them for fear of inviting more terrorists.

 

My question is this, is this policy correct? While I understand the reasons behind not negotiating with terrorists, particularly the fear tha it legitimizes their actions as an effective means of protest. However when faced with terrorists groups on the scale of hesbollah and hamas, is there any other option than to negotiate?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

However when faced with terrorists groups on the scale of hesbollah and hamas, is there any other option than to negotiate?

Blow them up, and that's what we've always done. It's certainly effective if done well. Negotiations with the sort of people they are would probably end up angering someone else - for example, negotiating and coming to a deal with one ethnic group in Iraq would probably end up with another ethnic group being angered over the deal and trying to blow someone else up.

[Bettina]

Blow them up, and that's what we've always done. It's certainly effective if done well. Negotiations with the sort of people they are would probably end up angering someone else - for example, negotiating and coming to a deal with one ethnic group in Iraq would probably end up with another ethnic group being angered over the deal and trying to blow someone else up.

 

Exactly. How does one deal with the Hamas government that still calls for the destruction of Israel at any cost.

 

Bee

[Jim]

the policy of every country to my knowledge when faced with a terrorist group has been to not negotiate with them for fear of inviting more terrorists.

 

My question is this' date=' is this policy correct? While I understand the reasons behind not negotiating with terrorists, particularly the fear tha it legitimizes their actions as an effective means of protest. However when faced with terrorists groups on the scale of hesbollah and hamas, is there any other option than to negotiate?[/quote']

 

Grieve for the abducted victims but do not forfeit lives in the future with a policy that rewards terrorism today.

[CPL.Luke]

That would seem like the logical thing to say, except for the fact that israel has pursued such a policy for the past 30 years and things have continued to deteriorate over there

[ecoli]

That would seem like the logical thing to say, except for the fact that israel has pursued such a policy for the past 30 years and things have continued to deteriorate over there

 

Israeli policy cannot be said so simply as that. For one thing, the UN and the US and negotiated cease fires that have allowed terrorist groups to endure.

 

That's just one thing.

[Saryctos]

Guy1: please don't do that...

Terrorist: what will you give me If I do?

Guy1: stuf...

Terrorist: Cool, so if I piss you off I get stuff?

Guy1: F that forget the stuff...please stop doing that.

Terrorist: why should I stop if there's nothing in it for me?

Guy1: Well...I'll hit you!

Terrorist: Well then I guess I'll have to defend myself! Jihad!!!

Guy1: WTF? get dead!

Guy2: Why did you kill that terrorist?

Guy1: he won't stop doing things that I don't like!

Guy2: deal with it...

Guy1: I just did!!!

Guy2: I don't like how you did that. Please don't do that...

Guy1: what will you give me If I do?

...

 

Circular problems like this have few answers other than compromise(not seen as a compromise from those making the concessions) or remove a part from the loop. Isreal it seems, is tired of making concessions that endanger their citizens.

[ecoli]

Circular problems like this have few answers other than compromise(not seen as a compromise from those making the concessions) or remove a part from the loop. Isreal it seems, is tired of making concessions that endanger their citizens.

 

And, they are tired of 'guy2' who tell them they aren't allowed to defend themselves and that they must make concessions that only wind up hurting themselves.

[Sisyphus]

It depends on the terrorist. If they are holding you ransom for something, knowing ahead of time that you won't negotiate will prevent them from trying. If, as is the case with those crazy mofos in Hamas, all they want from you is to die and they don't care if they die themselves, then merely refusing to negotiate and being tough is no deterrant at all, and probably does more harm than good, inasmuch as it pisses more of them off and actually encourages terrorism rather than deterring it.

[ecoli]

But Sisyphus, you can't negotiate with them because they won't settle for anything less then the complete irradiacation of Israel. Obviously that's not an option.

 

I have hopes that Hamas will develop into a legitamite political party that Israel may one day feel safe to negotiate with. So far, their 'reign' has been less violent than I would have feared.

 

But, unless militant groups alter their views, it's not worth negotiating with them.

 

Hezbollah, for example, kidnapped soldiers to force Israel to release prisioners. As this would only serve to put more terrorists back on the streets, obviously this is not an option for Israel.

[Sisyphus]

Sure, giving them what they want is out of the question (especially if what they want is your destruction!), but giving them what they deserve is often counterproductive as well. It's a tricky middle ground. This is an enemy that cannot be deterred by threat of force, but it can be starved out of existence by lack of fuel for hatred.

[AL]

Regarding terrorist negotiations in general, what if the terrorist demands are very modest? For instance, a few years ago, the Philippines agreed to withdraw about 50 troops from their "humanitarian force" from Iraq in exchange for one of their nationals who was held hostage. The Philippines took a lot of criticism from the West for "appeasing" the terrorists and so forth, but I wonder, moving 50 people out isn't such a big demand. If someone held your family for a small ransom (say a few hundred bucks), wouldn't you pay? Or would you stand firm on the principle?

[ecoli]

Regarding terrorist negotiations in general, what if the terrorist demands are very modest? For instance, a few years ago, the Philippines agreed to withdraw about 50 troops from their "humanitarian force" from Iraq[/url'] in exchange for one of their nationals who was held hostage. The Philippines took a lot of criticism from the West for "appeasing" the terrorists and so forth, but I wonder, moving 50 people out isn't such a big demand. If someone held your family for a small ransom (say a few hundred bucks), wouldn't you pay? Or would you stand firm on the principle?

 

Nah, it's not about princible. If Hezbollah held non-violent demonstrations to the demand the creation of a Palestinian state adjacent to Israel, I would be completely sympathetic to their cause.

 

But, one of the reasons why there isn't a Palestinian state already, is the security issues Israel has to deal with (and of course the settlements, but that's another issue). The violence used by the terrorist turns me off to them.

 

Just like the violence done by the Enviromentalists and other groups, turn me off to their causes.

 

The civil rights movement in the 60's wouldn't have been half so effective if it hadn't been mostly non-violent. If the blacks bombed the homes of white people, nobody would have supported their cause.

[YT2095]

never negotiate or allow concessions to criminals, never ever ever!

[ecoli]

never negotiate or allow concessions to criminals, never ever ever!

 

If a group had a legitamate cause and campaigned it in a legitamate way, I wouldn't consider them criminals.

[mooeypoo]

Israeli policy cannot be said so simply as that. For one thing, the UN and the US and negotiated cease fires that have allowed terrorist groups to endure.

 

That's just one thing.

 

It's also not true to say things deteriorated "down there"..

 

First off, the Israeli thought is that when we deal with terrorists, we don't deal with a COUNTRY - hence, the agreements are still signed with countries - or, well, hoped to be signed. We still have and had agreements with countries and even with the PLO (which was a terrorist organization before it names itself the Palestinian Government). You can look up "israel peace proposals" or just start out here, if you don't believe me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Middle_East_peace_proposals .

 

 

Anyways, the Israeli way of dealing with terrorist-demands is very controversial, even inside israel. The notion of giving out prisoners in return for our kidnapped soldiers is very problematic. The basic notion that governs almost all (and presents a huge problem since the arab terrorists got that and kidnap soldiers and civilians KNOWING this notion) is that Israel will never leave one of its civilians or soldiers behind. The life (and sometimes after death aswell) of an Israeli Citizen is worth fighting for almost anything.

 

Israel was known to let out prisoners for the body of a dead soldier, too.

 

In Israel, one of the heated debates at the moment is wheather or not should we release prisoners that will rejoin their terrorist cells to continue and hurt more civilians, for the kidnapped soldiers, seeing as this - again - will serve as another example that these kidnappings are "worthwhile" for terrorists..

 

It's unfortunately not an easy question to deal with, since it sadly deals with human lives. It's not as easy as to say "we will not handle terrorist demands" knowing that you condemn a person (or persons) to death, and sometimes a lot more..

 

Also, terrorism is not only the fight itself, terrorism is the fight to scare a nation, and the fact that there are soldiers and civilians being kept hostages (even if they are dead, which we cannot say for sure) and Israel government will claim that they "mourn them and moves on", it serves as a death blow to the nation's sense of pride and security.. and this is a terrorism goal. So sometimes, it is quite hard to fight the bottom-line-goal of terrorism when dealing with hostages.

 

Release prisoners and they've "won", leave a person behind in their hands, and the population's mood and sense of security dies and they've "won".. agh, life's not simple.

 

So I have no answer to this thread.. I would say it is a matter of specific cases. One should TRY not to negotiate, and get the people out alive with a specific targetted action, but if that is not an option, then condemning human life seems quite a problematic thing.. as I kept saying in other posts, life in those issues are never "black and white", and gray is something very very difficult to fight.

 

 

~moo

[YT2095]

If a group had a legitamate cause and campaigned it in a legitamate way, I wouldn't consider them criminals.

 

fair enough and I agree, however, the Title of this thread is about TERRORISTS:rolleyes:

[Severian]

If you want to answer this question you will have to first define what a terrorist is. Is a terrorist not a terrorist if they wear a uniform? Is a terrorist not a terrorist if they only attack soldiers and not civilians? Is a terrorist not a terrorist if their cause is just? Is a terrorist not a terrorist if they are part of a democratically elected government? Is a terrorist not a terrorist if they don't kill anyone?

[gcol]

Governments may publicly state that they dont negotiate, but they do it through deniable third parties, sometimes tacitly encouraging special interest groups with private funds. Believing otherewise is naive. Swallowing that line of propaganda can cause serious credibility indigestion. That is the way of real politics.

[Dak]

Governments may publicly state that they dont negotiate, but they do it through deniable third parties, sometimes tacitly encouraging special interest groups with private funds. Believing otherewise is naive. Swallowing that line of propaganda can cause serious credibility indigestion. That is the way of real politics.

 

Do you have any evidence of that?

 

The logic and reasoning behind non-negotiation policies is sound. Wer the govournment to negotiate behind-the-scences with terrorists, then other terrorist groups would undoubtably learn of this, thus encouraging them and thwarting the pretty obviouse benifits of non-negotiation.

 

The idea that no behind-the-scencs negotiations occour seems pretty logical, and far from naiive.

 

======

 

I wonder how well 'reverse psycology terrorism' would work? e.g., a terrorist organisation who want the US out of iraq, and so enbark on a campaign of terror to 'forse the US to stay in iraq'. i wonder if the US would be more likely to pull out quickly, so as to not seem to be 'encouraging the terrorists'?

[mr d]

hello

 

all countries negotiate with terroists. they may do it directly, or through 3rd party proxies.

question is how they respond when negotiation fails, and how they control the information of negotiations to the media and public, plus the portrayal of the results of their actions.

 

mr d