You don’t make deals with terrorists

Terrorism, by its very nature, is not a campaign with negotiable demands or reasonable objectives.

Panaji, Goa: The announcement of a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas has once again sparked global debate on the ethics, efficacy, and consequences of negotiating with terrorist organizations. While many will hail such agreements as victories for diplomacy and peace, the reality is far more sobering: making deals with terrorists is not a solution; it is merely a delay.

Terrorism, by its very nature, is not a campaign with negotiable demands or reasonable objectives. It thrives on fear, chaos, and an unwavering commitment to violence as a means to achieve its ends. In the case of Hamas, this end is not coexistence but the eradication of Israel. To make a deal with such an entity is to legitimize its methods and embolden its ambitions.

History is rife with examples that demonstrate the futility of negotiating with terrorists. Any pause in violence granted by a ceasefire is temporary, serving merely as an opportunity for groups like Hamas to regroup, rearm, and plan their next onslaught. The lull in hostilities is often exploited to strengthen their infrastructure of terror—smuggling arms, building tunnels, and indoctrinating the next generation of militants.

For Israel, a nation constantly under siege, such ceasefire deals do not bring peace of mind; they bring a ticking clock. The countdown to the next wave of rocket fire or the next cross-border infiltration begins the moment the ink dries on any agreement.
Beyond the practical consequences, there is a profound moral issue at stake. Negotiating with terrorists erodes the principle that civilized nations cannot allow violence to dictate policy. It sends a dangerous message to the world: that terror works. For Hamas, each ceasefire deal is not a compromise; it is a validation of its tactics. It reinforces their belief that they can murder civilians, hold innocent people hostage, and use their own population as human shields—and still extract concessions.

What does this teach the families of the victims of Hamas’ atrocities? That their loved ones’ deaths were a currency for negotiations? That justice and accountability can be set aside for expediency?
This is not to say that peace is unattainable. It is. But peace cannot come at the cost of security or justice. It requires the complete dismantling of the terror machinery that organizations like Hamas have built. This is not just an Israeli imperative; it is a global one.
As a survivor of the 7 October attacks told me during my recent visit to Israel: “You can eliminate terrorists, but the real challenge is to eradicate the radicalism.” Ceasefires will not achieve this. They are bandages on open wounds, treating symptoms while ignoring the disease.

The international community must wake up to this reality. A true and lasting solution requires confronting terrorism head-on, not appeasing it. It requires calling out the state sponsors of terror, such as Iran, that enable groups like Hamas to operate. And it requires recognizing that the moral high ground is not found in futile negotiations but in the unwavering defence of innocent lives.

You do not make deals with terrorists. Because their terrorism will not stop; it will only be temporarily halted. Every ceasefire deal is a compromise of principles and a postponement of the inevitable. Israel, and the world must understand that lasting peace will come not through appeasement but through the eradication of those who perpetuate violence and hate.
The path is neither easy nor quick. But it is the only path that honours the victims, protects the future, and upholds the values that terrorists seek to destroy.

* Savio Rodrigues is the founder and editor-in-chief of Goa Chronicle.