In reality and in practice, governments have done exactly the opposite of their preaching and promise. President Ronald Reagan and his administration pledged publicly in the 80's to fight terrorism. Secretly, his officials were talking to Hezbollah and eventually clinched the arms-for-hostage deals – also known as Irangate or Iran-Contra affair – to release American hostages. This is only one example of U.S. administrations' double standards. Of course, the U.S. is not alone. The French, the British, the Italians, the Germans, the Japanese and, now, the South Koreans have followed suit in their dealings with either local or foreign terrorist groups. Governments paid in arms, in cash, in commercial benefits, in oil, in goods, and above all, in releasing terrorists from jails.

There is no better example than the behavior of my own government. Israel has gained the reputation as the high priest in its war against terrorism. It is depicted worldwide as a country that refuses to bend to terrorist demands. In many circles, Israel is considered a role model in that regard. To a certain degree, Israel does deserve such credit. It is surrounded by hostile nations. It must confront terrorist groups that have not hesitated to use the most vicious, cruel and inhumane methods to inflict death and destruction against Israeli civilians. In response, Israel has developed anti-terrorist weaponry and doctrines that are studied and adopted in many parts of the world. Israel has even sent its commandos on daring operations to rescue prisoners and hostages.

But at the same time, Israel has proved that its heart and mouth are not on equal footing. In public, many Israeli governments swore to fight terrorists to the bitter end. But in several cases Israeli governments have agreed to cave in. In 1985, Israel swapped more than 1100 Palestinian terrorists for three of its soldiers who had been captured by a Palestinian terrorist group. In 2004, Israel released dozens of Arab and Palestinian prisoners and terrorists in exchange for the bodies of three of its soldiers and a former colonel whom Hezbollah was holding in Lebanon. The deal went through even after the public learned that the colonel was a criminal and a drug dealer.

The truth is that governments are not motivated by the dilemma of whether or not to negotiate. Instead, they operate by a variation of the Prisoners' Dilemma, taken from game theory: they fear that if they don't talk to the terrorists, they will lose out to someone else who will.

What really is needed is an international consensus, an international acceptance that no one talks to terrorists. This should be not a theoretical concept but a very practical decision, shared by all governments around the world. But apart from sounding utopian, this idea simply cannot be implemented as long as there are governments and states sponsoring and supporting terrorists. So my advice to governments is cut out the hypocrisy. To quote an immortal line from, "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly", an Italian western B-movie from the 70's, starring Clint Eastwood, “If you come to kill, kill – don't talk.”

Governments must do what they say they’ll do. If they are convinced that talking to terrorists would only increase terror, they should not negotiate with them, regardless of what might result. If they believe that negotiating with terrorists is inevitable because the public can't bear the consequences of doing otherwise, so be it – but they should say so, rather than pretend to do otherwise.