Trump Administration's Engagement With Hamas Is a High-Stakes Gamble

While the humanitarian imperative to save hostages is undeniable, history has shown that negotiating with terrorists carries long-term risks that cannot be ignored.

- SAVIO RODRIGUES

US President Donald Trump administration's decision to engage in direct dialogue with Hamas in Doha marks a significant departure from decades of US diplomatic precedent. For years, the United States has adhered to a strict policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorist organizations, recognizing that doing so risks legitimizing violent actors, incentivizing future hostage-taking, and undermining broader counterterrorism efforts.

Yet, in an unprecedented move, Presidential Hostage Envoy Adam Boehler is now sitting across from Hamas representatives, engaging in discussions with a group responsible for some of the most heinous acts of terrorism in recent history.

Sources in the US have told this journalist that Trump administration consulted with Israel about the possibility of engaging with Hamas, but the truth is that according to informed sources in Israeli intelligence, Israel only learned about aspects of the talks through other back channels. This suggests a degree of caution, if not skepticism, on Israel's part regarding the negotiations.

Given Israel's long-standing policy of refusing to recognize or negotiate directly with Hamas, the revelation that it was not fully informed about certain aspects of the talks highlights the sensitive nature of the US decision.

This engagement is not just a tactical maneuver but a stark reflection of the complexities of modern geopolitics. The paradox of negotiating with terrorists is well known: the immediate imperative to save lives must be weighed against the long-term consequences of emboldening those who would take more lives in the future.