Whenever there is even a slight possibility of negotiation taking shape, Israel often seems to feel threatened by it. Instead of allowing that space to grow, the pattern has been to disrupt it by eliminating or sidelining the negotiating party, whether in Gaza, Lebanon, or Iran. What could have turned into dialogue is pushed back into confrontation.
This approach reflects a deeper security doctrine that prioritises control over uncertainty. Negotiations introduce variables, concessions, and the possibility of long-term commitments, all of which can constrain tactical freedom. By contrast, a conflict environment, while costly, allows for clearer lines of action and justification. In that sense, preventing negotiations from maturing into formal agreements can be seen as an attempt to retain strategic leverage.
But the bigger point is this: peace is actually the ultimate tool to defeat Israel’s current approach. Because once peace takes hold, the entire focus shifts. The external conflict fades, and the internal conversation within Israel starts to take centre stage. Domestic forces begin to ask questions, demand accountability, and examine decisions that were earlier justified under the shadow of conflict.
In other words, what cannot be achieved through pressure or escalation might begin to take shape through peace. Because after peace, the system within Israel itself will automatically start asking its leadership for accountability. And that is a different kind of challenge altogether, one that cannot be managed through military means.