Israel Is a Nation in Trauma, but It Shouldn't Give Up on Diplomacy
A recent report about two unnamed countries conspiring to attack Israel caused heightened alarm among Israelis. But fear and suspicion can't replace diplomacy, even in the aftermath of October 7
Last week, a troubling and mysterious news report took over the headlines in Israel. The report described secret communications between two regional countries aimed at deceiving Israel and then launching a surprise attack against it. According to the report, one of the countries advised the other to sign a normalization agreement with Israel, while simultaneously preparing for war and waiting for the right moment to overwhelm the Jewish state.
Apart from the problematic nature of publishing such a report without naming the relevant countries, the fact that this piece of news rose to the top of the national agenda tells us something about Israel's current mindset. For many Israelis, the lesson offered by this report was almost obvious: not to be fooled by diplomacy. A country that talks about peace today may be preparing for war tomorrow.
After October 7, such a fear is hardly irrational. But taken to its logical conclusion, it leaves Israel with only one strategy: permanent war. Israel's current government, and a large swath of the Israeli public, treat the continuation of the multi-front war that began almost three years ago as the new natural state of the region. The government, at the same time, is encouraging the public to view any diplomatic initiative as a potential trap.
Israel should not ignore the military buildup of other countries or assume their intentions are benign. It must maintain its military superiority and prepare for deception, shifting intentions and even the collapse of existing peace agreements. This was true before October 7 and it is also true today. But a country expanding its military is not, by itself, proof of an intention to go to war, just as an agreement is never a guarantee of permanent peace.
The purpose of a diplomatic agreement is not to eliminate competing interests or to erase existing military capabilities. What a successful agreement can achieve, however, is the creation of shared interests between two countries, thus reducing the possibility of future conflict. An agreement can also bring political and economic benefits that make the resumption of war too costly for both sides.
The most important part of the report, therefore, is not that these countries are strengthening their militaries, but rather that they are interested in an agreement with Israel. It's important to remember that Israel possesses extraordinary military power, which should give it the confidence to pursue diplomacy from a position of strength. Military superiority should enable calculated political risks, not become an argument for avoiding all diplomacy and relying solely on the strength of the IDF.
The distrust created by October 7 is understandable. But trauma cannot become a country's permanent strategic doctrine. If every diplomatic proposal is presumed to be a deception and every military buildup is treated as proof of an inevitable attack, there will never be conditions under which diplomacy is considered safe enough to attempt.
Israel does not have to choose between security and naivete. The real choice is between the current government's policy of endlessly "managing" different conflicts, and an alternative policy that combines military strength, deterrence and the smart use of diplomacy.
War is sometimes necessary. But it shouldn't become Israel's only strategy.
Danny Citrinowicz is a Senior Researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies and a former Israeli Defense Intelligence official.