Israel is yet again embroiled in a war that was completely predictable and arguably avoidable if proper foresight had been exercised and if the ill-fated disengagement from Gaza had not led to the inevitable installation of a Hamas regime. At present, however, Israelis and Americans stand by the principle that they do not talk with terrorist groups like Hamas.

Already there are those who dare to disagree with this policy. Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema said this week that, “Without engaging in dialogue with the Palestinians who govern Gaza, the peace process will have difficulties in moving ahead." As he points out, numerous influential voices in Israel are saying the same thing.

Interestingly, the same discussion is going on among politicians in the United States. In the Democratic presidential campaign there has been a disagreement between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Although Clinton says she wants to “engage” America’s adversaries, in her paper on the issue for the Council on Foreign Relations she sets out very severe conditions that should pertain before she would start talking and rules out the possibility of talking with terrorists.

Obama, conversely, wants to talk with the enemies of the United States such as Iran and North Korea without any preconditions. As far as I can tell, Obama does not say whether he would ever talk to terrorists or not.

To talk or not to talk?

There is no point, it is argued, talking to a group or a country that supports terrorism and wants to destroy us. Unless the enemy changes, talking is not only pointless but also counterproductive and dangerous and shows weakness. The counterargument was made by Obama in his speech after losing the Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island primaries to Clinton. Citing the examples of Presidents Kennedy and Reagan, Obama argued that, “Strong countries and strong leaders aren't afraid to tell hard truths to petty dictators.”

The question is: Which view is the correct one? Some would argue that the disastrous and delusional Munich Agreement signed by Hitler, Chamberlain, Mussolini and Daladier proves how pointless and counterproductive it is to talk or negotiate with enemies. However, it needs closer examination. Clearly, negotiating with enemies just in order to appease and elicit a worthless piece of paper is a true demonstration of weakness and is doomed to failure from the very start.

There is, however, an alternative. The Torah tells us that, when God wanted to take the Israelites out of Egypt, he first sent Moses and Aaron to Pharaoh on a diplomatic mission backed up with the threat of force. Force was used after diplomacy failed. Furthermore, in Deuteronomy (20:11), God tells the Israelites, “When you draw near to a city to wage war against it, you shall call out to it for peace. If it does not respond to you in peace…then the entire people found within in shall be a tribute for you.”

Not a zero sum game

So the Jewish religion seems to advocate the necessity of communicating with enemies. This does not mean that we should become pacifists. This is not a zero sum game. As long as it does not embolden them or weaken us, there is a moral obligation to seek every avenue for peace, including direct talks with enemies. And, as in the biblical model mentioned above, if the leader is forceful enough and is ready to follow up with real consequences if the enemy does not comply, direct talks can be very productive.

The tyrants and dictators of this world must be told plainly and directly, out of the mouths of power, that they must either change their ways or suffer severe and irrevocable consequences. If this is what Mr. Obama has in mind when he advocates talking with our enemies without preconditions, it makes a lot of sense to me. It would seem that Israel can learn from that strategy too.