ABSTRACT
Talking to terrorists guarantees controversy. Politically, it can be tantamount to appeasement. The moral panic surrounding former US President Carter before and after his 2008 visit with the Palestinian Hamas movement is understood given the ad nauseam claim: “we will not negotiate with terrorists.” 2 In truth, successful counterterrorism involves precisely the opposite. As Staniland continues, the “smart question is not whether to talk to terrorists, but, instead, which terrorists to talk to and how to talk to them.” 3
Though rarely in public view, the reality is that talking to terrorists happens all the time. 4 A major catalyst for the peace process in Northern Ireland was a series of secret talks between Sinn Fein and representatives of the British government that began in 1990. Ceasefi res followed four years later, culminating in the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 that has since brought stability to the region. Likewise, despite years of vowing never to speak with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the approach of Israeli offi cials eventually changed. 5
Academics also talk with terrorists, primarily for the purposes of gathering data for research projects. Examples abound because of the willingness of some to “do the unpalatable” and interview those who have engaged in terrorism. 6 In rare cases, some even convey a “willingness to join [the terrorists] so as to gain insight into their lives and organizational circumstances.” 7 For others, not talking to terrorists altogether is a badge of “scholarly credibility” a popular assumption being that engagement by researchers feeds the credibility of a population desperately seeking vindication through publicity. 8 Those who accept the value of such engagement, however, have made signifi cant progress in bridging what Hoffman described as “the chasm separating them from the actual subjects of their inquiries.” 9
Hoffman’s concerns are symptomatic of a broader challenge. In a systematic review of thousands of peer-reviewed literature sources, Lum et al. reported that: “we . . .
