Hamas is no less unreasonable, however, by acting as though Israel was a non-entity and perceiving the United States as the Great Satan: not to be trusted, but avoided at all costs.

Israel, much like the United States, or for that matter Britain, Spain and a number of other countries, has long said it would not negotiate with "terrorists."

But that is a misleading statement, and don't let appearances fool you. Israel, Britain, Spain and the United States have all in the past negotiated with groups they labeled as terrorists.

In fact, there are rumors that the United States may even now be engaging in secret negotiations with Hamas in an effort to curb, once and for all, the impasse over the Gaza Strip.

Israel has in the past, and is now negotiating with what it calls terrorist groups. Granted, those negotiations are not direct, but are instead typically carried out through third parties, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, or even the United States.

Similarly, Hamas refuses to negotiate directly with Israel. Yet, the Islamists in control of the Gaza Strip are indirectly talking with the Jewish state through the intermediaries of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United States.

While indirect talks remain a far better alternative than taking up arms, refusing to engage one's enemy face-to-face in direct talks across the negotiating table comes with certain disadvantages.

First, indirect talks have the disadvantage of taking up more time, if only from a purely logistic point of view. Inevitably, the negotiators have to refer back to their governments either by traveling there or through secure phone lines. In situations where time plays a major role, indirect talks are a disadvantage.

Second, there is much that can be gained by face-to-face interaction, whether talking business or politics. Negotiators can look their adversaries in the eyes and observe their body language to get a greater sense of how their exchanges are being received and what level of trust they think they can have.

Third, in indirect talks the absent party is obliged to rely on the information and nuances that the go-between negotiator will bring back.

Fourth, in holding indirect talks one has to rely on the third party to faithfully transmit and deliver all messages and other nuances with as little distortion as possible.

Indirect talks, skillfully negotiated, will often lead to direct negotiations. They simply take longer to get there.