Hostage deal: the media's hypocrisy on negotiating with terrorists
The open collapse of an alleged U.S. principle
All ethical people want the remaining hostages held in Gaza to be released. Today, many feel a sense of hope. Maybe, after two years of excruciating torture, sexual abuse, starvation and other forms of hell, the survivors will finally be brought home.
But as the media trumpets a deal to end the Israel-Gaza war, it’s missing one of the most important points with global ramifications: This agreement exists because of negotiations with terrorists — something the United States has long officially opposed.
In the media, throughout this war there has been an assumption that Israel should negotiate with Hamas. The media always has separate rules for Israel. I dug into this in Episode 23:
NBC: Night after night, Israelis taking to the streets, demanding their prime minister make the concessions needed to reach a hostage deal.
Josh: The media is having a field day with this angle. And the protests in favor of getting a hostage deal should be covered, absolutely. But as I always say on this show, truth requires two things: facts plus context. Crucial context for this is that it shows the extent to which Israelis value life — every life of every citizen, of every background and faith and age and everything.
This is about Israelis in support of doing something that the United States insists it never does: negotiating with terrorists. This is the same media that usually supports the principle of not negotiating with terrorists. Here’s CNN last year when the United States got some hostages released from Iran.
CNN host: So Iran is one of the only four countries the US government, officially designated as a state sponsor of terrorism. I know the U.S. does not negotiate with terrorists, but this negotiation was done through a third party. (Switzerland.)
Josh: And here’s PBS asking U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield whether Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud should negotiate with the Islamist terrorist group al-Shabab.
Linda Thomas-Greenfield: We have designated them as terrorists. We would not be asked in the United States to negotiate with terrorists. Al-Shabab is responsible for the deaths of thousands upon thousands of Somalis. It is responsible for this country being in the situation that it’s in right now.
Josh: The media treated that as a legitimate answer — but not when it comes to Israel. There, it’s, “Oh, how dare Israel not have given up more by now?”
Over at MSNBC, meanwhile, then host Joy Reid slammed Israel for allegedly killing a “negotiating partner” from Hamas. She previously had this exchange with Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor:
Reich: There should be no negotiating at all with hostage takers.
Reid: Yeah, there’s a reason that we have a saying, ‘You don’t negotiate with terrorists.’ This is economic terrorism.”
Of course, the media refuses to acknowledge that Hamas is, by definition, a Palestinian terrorist group. (See my open letter to the BBC about that.) But it knows that the U.S. government does.
The media should be asking all government leaders about this. Does the United States now believe it’s good to negotiate with terrorists? Why should Israel do so but not Somalia? Where does the government stand on this, and why?
It’s a crucial question as Islamist terrorism skyrockets worldwide. Learn more in the latest episode.
What are you seeing in the news coverage? Send links, ideas, feedback and more as I prepare the next episode.
To support They Stand Corrected for a limited time, learn about the heroes of United Hatzalah by signing up here. And join the “world’s oldest book club.”
JL
P.S. I initially quoted Reid has having said the words that Reich said; I fixed it.