A dance with the devil

RECENTLY, I have been asked quite a lot about the reason why Israel didn’t agree to Hamas’ offer of negotiations for the hostages. When you frame it this way, it seems kind of odd for the prime minister of Israel not to agree to the deal. But what are the reasons behind this decision?

In order for us to understand the complexity of the issue, let’s try to analyze the situation through the eyes of the Israeli PM and use the theory of negotiations to properly understand what is at stake.

The indirect negotiations between Israel and Hamas over exchange deals are like walking on a thin line in international politics. At the heart of these discussions lies the intricate concept (coming from the theory of negotiations) of the zone of possible agreement (ZOPA), a theoretical space where mutual agreement is possible. However, the path TO fiNDING THIS COMMON GROUND is fraught with challenges, especially when the other side is a terrorist organization — Hamas.

Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by the US, Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Israel, the Organization of American States, Paraguay, New Zealand and the UK. In the process of designation are the Philippines, Switzerland and others.

Not least of which is Hamas’ approach to counteroffers, often seen as irrational and lying outside the ZOPA. Negotiating with Hamas is akin to dancing with the devil. Especially after the massacre of 1,200 Israelis and foreigners and the kidnapping of 240 more, including Filipinos: four murdered and two kidnapped, and fortunately released.

How do you find common ground when one side uses your citizens as bargaining chips and their own people as human shields? Just like 50 years ago, former Israeli prime minister Golda Meir’s words still haunt us: “Wishing for the day when our adversaries love their children more than they hate ours.”

Understanding ZOPA in Israel-Hamas context

So, what is it like to dance with the devil? In one word — painful. Imagine a tango, where for the dance to work, both of you need to take a step forward to be able to move with the dance. This is pretty much what the ZOPA represents — the common interest from which BOTH SIDES WOULD BENEfiT.

In the context of Israel-Hamas negotiations, this would mean a deal that secures the interests and meets the demands of both sides.

However, when negotiations encompass abducted civilians, comprising Israeli and foreign nationals, including women, the elderly, and even infants like 1-YEAR-OLD BABY KfiR BIBAS, ETHICAL considerations extend beyond the ZOPA. This includes severe human rights violations, as evidenced by reports from UN representatives citing instances of rape and sexual violence against Israeli hostages. All of this is proposed in exchange for convicted terrorists, propelling the ethical implications into a realm of profound moral and existential debate.

The complexity of these negotiations stems from the fundamentally differing goals, values and pressures faced by each side. Israel’s primary concern is the safety and security of its citizens, including the return of hostages or at least their remains, while Hamas looks to leverage these negotiations to gain political power and concessions that bolster its position and meet its demands.

The situation is more worrying than it appears, playing into the hands of a terrorist organization and allowing it to “win” by getting what it wants will cause a domino effect, which will encourage other terrorist organizations to do the same. Even today, the world is facing the challenge of a new warfare where States and governments (especially democratic regimes) are facing a threat from non-governmental players (for example, terrorist organizations such as IS, Houthis and Hezbollah, among them) at the global arena. This challenge on its own is a problem the modern world and sovereign States are facing.

Ethical dimensions of negotiating with Hamas

In this tango dance, when you hold the hand of the devil, you get burned.

While Hamas in its charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel, and its leaders openly say they would commit the massacre and slaughter of as many civilians again and again just like what they did on October 7, 2023, it puts the Israeli prime minister in a very tough position.

Would you negotiate with your sister’s murderer to get your kidnapped brother released from captivity?

Hamas is asking to release convicted criminals and terrorists with blood on their hands in exchange for the kidnapped civilians.

Israel faces the profound challenge of the reality that released prisoners have historically resumed terrorist activities, including murder, underscoring the danger of setting a precedent that could incentivize future kidnappings and terror.

It not only impacts future negotiations but also affects societal morale and the strategic posture of the Israeli state. The ethical imperative to save lives is pitted against the strategic imperative to deter future kidnappings and terror.

The release of individuals like Yahya Sinwar, who later took ON SIGNIfiCANT LEADERSHIP ROLES within Hamas and was the mastermind behind the October 7 massacre of 1,200 people, exemPLIfiES THE TANGIBLE RISKS INVOLVED in these exchanges.

Another notable example is Abdullah Barghouti, a leading fiGURE AND CHIEF BOMB MAKER FOR Hamas, who is serving 67 life sentences for his involvement in attacks that resulted in the death of 66 Israelis and injured 500 more. Barghouti’s case often comes up in discussions about potential exchanges due to Hamas’ keen interest in having him back to continue his activities in terror and murder — much like Sinwar.

Hamas’ approach to making demands that fall outside the ZOPA complicates the negotiation process by creating a stalemate situation. It shifts the negotiations from a potential compromise to a zero-sum game where one side’s gain is inherently seen as the other’s loss. This perspective unDERMINES THE POSSIBILITY OF fiNDING a middle ground and contributes TO THE PROLONGATION OF CONflICT AND suffering on both sides.

Strategies for moving forward

So, what is the solution? Or how can we move forward?

To navigate these complex negotiations, several strategies from the theory of negotiations could be considered:

One option is expanding the ZOPA: Both parties need to explore ways to broaden the ZOPA through confidence-building measures (but how can you build trust with an entity that did everything to destroy you and the trust?).

Through international mediation, for example, the involvement of neutral international mediators (such as the Paris Initiative and others) could help bridge the gap between the two sides, offering creative solutions that expand the ZOPA.

Public and political pressure: Both Israeli and Palestinian societies, along with the international community, can play a role in pressuring their leaders towards more rational and compromise-oriented negotiation strategies. But we need to remember that this strategy is a tricky one because when you push too hard, you can blow the deal.

The path forward requires a better understanding of the ZOPA that incorporates ethical considerations alongside strategic imperatives. Such as engaging in broader international efforts to combat terrorism. Or developing innovative negotiation strategies that can protect vulnerable POPULATIONS WITHOUT SIGNIfiCANTLY empowering terrorist entities.

Question for the world: What would you do?

This question is not rhetorical; it is a sincere inquiry into the heart of humanity. What would you do if faced with the unenviable task of navigating these tumultuous waters? As deputy ambassador, and through the prism of our prime minister’s challenges, I seek to offer not just an account of our dilemmas but an invitation to empathy and understanding.

This is not a dance Israel chooses to perform alone. The international community must play its part, standing in solidarity against terrorism and working together to prevent the exploitation of human lives as bargaining chips. The global fight against terror requires not just condemnation but action, action that reinforces the principles of freedom and security for all nations.