What began as a reflective morning discussion on The View turned into one of the show’s most thought-provoking — and controversial — exchanges of the year.

As news spread about a potential peace deal in the Middle East, the co-hosts found themselves grappling not just with geopolitics, but with the ethics of dialogue itself: Can peace ever be achieved by talking to those the world considers evil?

The conversation unfolded on air like a miniature version of the global debate — emotional, divided, but deeply human. Alyssa Farah Griffin, Sunny Hostin, and Whoopi Goldberg each offered distinct perspectives that together captured the tension between pragmatism, faith, and compassion.

Alyssa Farah Griffin: “Sometimes the Only Way to Get Peace Is to Sit Down With the Most Evil People”

The segment began with political commentator David Rubin playing a clip from January 2025 — a moment that had aged in fascinating ways.
In that clip, co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin, a former White House communications director, made a bold pledge: she would wear a MAGA hat on the show if President Donald Trump successfully secured the release of Israeli hostages.

Months later, as reports surfaced that such a deal had indeed been reached — with the help of Trump’s allies Steve Wickoff and Jared Kushner — Griffin found herself reflecting on what that meant.

“I think Steve [Wickoff] and Jared Kushner do deserve credit for this deal,” she admitted. “They actually personally met with Hamas. Sometimes the only way to get peace is to sit down with some of the most evil people and try to come up with what we can do to end the bloodshed.”

Her words landed with both weight and hesitation. Griffin’s acknowledgment of Trump’s team was unusual for The View, where political divides often run deep. Yet her point resonated beyond partisanship: the uncomfortable truth that diplomacy often demands proximity to darkness.

She paused, as if aware of the contradictions embedded in her statement. To negotiate with Hamas — a group responsible for decades of violence and classified as a terrorist organization by much of the world — was to engage in a moral gamble. But, Griffin argued, the alternative was worse: endless war, endless suffering.

Her remark — “sit down with some of the most evil people” — echoed through social media, sparking debate far beyond the studio walls. Was it naïve idealism or hard-nosed realism? To many viewers, it was both.

Sunny Hostin: “It Has Been My Daily Prayer That There Be Peace There”

If Griffin’s words carried the weight of political realism, Sunny Hostin’s voice brought in the depth of faith and personal conviction.

Hostin, a lawyer and journalist known for her spiritual openness, spoke not from strategy but from the soul. As the discussion turned emotional, she clasped her hands and spoke softly, her tone contrasting sharply with Griffin’s analytical delivery.

“As a faithful person, it has been my daily prayer that there be peace there,” she said. “And I remain a faithful person that this truly is the dawn of peace in the Middle East.”

Her words drew a moment of stillness. There was no applause — just quiet agreement, the kind that doesn’t need to be loud to be powerful.
In a media landscape often saturated with outrage, Hostin’s approach reminded viewers of something rare: the emotional cost of conflict, not in political terms, but in human terms.

To her, peace was not a matter of negotiation strategy or credit — it was a calling, a moral obligation that transcended politics. She spoke not as an analyst, but as a believer — someone who had seen too many headlines soaked in blood and still dared to hope.

Hostin’s message also served as a bridge between Griffin’s realism and Whoopi Goldberg’s later reflections. For Hostin, peace began with prayer — but it did not end there. Her hope, though rooted in faith, acknowledged the need for human action: the courage to believe peace was possible even when the world said otherwise.

Whoopi Goldberg: “The Palestinians Are Separate From Hamas”

The final turn came from Whoopi Goldberg, who — as always — brought gravity wrapped in simplicity.
After listening to her co-hosts’ exchange, she leaned forward, gesturing slightly as if to draw an invisible line between two often-conflated realities.

“Remember,” she said, “the Palestinians are separate from Hamas. Remember they were not able to vote, they could not do any, they had no rights in their country — so it’s good that we have all been able to say, ‘Oh, okay, that’s the difference.’”

Her statement reframed the discussion entirely. While others debated negotiations and leadership, Goldberg went to the root: identity and misunderstanding.

For years, she argued, much of the world had treated Palestinians and Hamas as synonymous — a mistake that only deepened the cycle of dehumanization. By reminding viewers of the difference, Goldberg placed empathy back at the center of the conversation.

Her comment wasn’t just political — it was moral.
By separating the people from the militants, she reminded the audience of something essential to any peace effort: that justice cannot be built on collective blame.

Goldberg’s voice, though calm, carried a quiet urgency. “They had no rights,” she repeated — a stark reminder that beyond the headlines, there are millions of lives caught between borders, governments, and ideologies they never chose.

A Moment Larger Than Television

As the segment drew to a close, what had begun as a talk-show discussion had turned into a meditation on humanity itself. Each co-host had, in her own way, articulated one of the three pillars of any true peace process: realism, faith, and empathy.

Griffin represented the difficult pragmatism of diplomacy — the belief that sometimes progress means shaking hands with your enemy.
Hostin embodied the spiritual and emotional yearning for reconciliation — peace not just as a deal, but as healing.
Goldberg anchored it all in perspective — reminding the world that understanding begins where prejudice ends.

The exchange left audiences divided but thoughtful. Online, some praised the show for daring to discuss the uncomfortable; others accused it of moral relativism. But perhaps that’s exactly what The View has always been — a national mirror, reflecting not just opinions but the struggles behind them.

The Larger Question

In the end, The View’s debate wasn’t just about Hamas, Trump, or the Middle East. It was about how societies confront evil — whether through exclusion or engagement, through condemnation or conversation.

Griffin’s line — “Sometimes the only way to get peace is to sit down with some of the most evil people” — may be the truest and most painful sentence spoken on television that week.
Because peace, as history shows, is rarely clean. It’s negotiated in rooms filled with ghosts and compromises, between people who have lost too much to ever fully trust each other again.

But as Hostin prayed and Goldberg reminded, peace also begins in recognition — of difference, of humanity, of the idea that no one side owns suffering.

And maybe, in that shared moment of discomfort and hope, The View managed to do what few platforms can: turn morning talk into a mirror of the world’s oldest struggle — not between good and evil, but between despair and the stubborn, fragile belief that peace is still possible.