Israeli Experts Warn Peace Deals Can Be Tactical Moves Within Ongoing Conflict

Recent reports reveal that some regional actors have advised others to tactically soften their stance and sign peace agreements with Israel, not to end conflict but to lull Israel into complacency while preparing for a larger confrontation. This approach treats peace accords as strategic tools within a broader war, rather than genuine resolutions. The article draws on historical and religious contexts, citing King David’s psalm and Ben-Gurion’s pragmatic view that peace only comes when enemies abandon hopes of Israel’s destruction.

Historically, peace treaties often served as temporary truces or strategic pauses rather than true reconciliations. The Islamic concept of "hudna," exemplified by Muhammad’s Treaty of Hudaybiyyah in 628 CE, illustrates this idea of ceasefire without permanent peace. Similarly, Israel’s peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, while significant, have not produced deep societal reconciliation, remaining largely cold and strategic.

The article stresses that Israel remains in a multifaceted war involving military threats, terrorism, propaganda, and diplomatic maneuvers. Peace agreements should be embraced when they reduce conflict and build shared interests, but Israel must approach them with open eyes, maintaining intelligence, military strength, and readiness. Diplomatic gestures cannot replace security measures or realistic assessments of adversaries’ intentions.

Ultimately, Israel’s primary mission is survival, not merely demonstrating a desire for peace. True peace will come only when adversaries give up the hope of eliminating Israel. Until then, Israel must balance diplomacy with vigilance, recognizing that peace deals can sometimes be part of ongoing hostilities rather than their end.