Arab states plotted to lull Israel into peace deal before attack – report

“Behind all these conceptual agreements are lies and deception,” Ben-Gvir said.

By World Israel News Staff

Officials from an Arab country urged another Arab state that is considering signing an agreement with Israel to reach the deal as a temporary tactical maneuver, while using the resulting period of calm to prepare for a future war against Israel, according to information cleared for publication by the Israeli military censor on Monday.

The identities of the two countries remain barred from publication, sharply limiting independent verification of the report.

Israeli media reports said the conversations took place in recent months and involved discussions about a possible normalization agreement with Israel.

According to reports by Channel 12 political commentator Amit Segal and Kan diplomatic correspondent Roi Kais, officials in one of the countries advised their counterparts to demonstrate short-term flexibility toward Israel and reach an agreement, without regarding the accord as a permanent commitment.

The proposal was described as a form of “tactical flexibility,” with the period following an agreement intended to help “lull” Israel while preparations for a broader confrontation continued.

Once military and political circumstances became more favorable, according to the reported proposal, the agreement could be abandoned and war launched against Israel.

The allegation is particularly sensitive because Israel has spent years pursuing additional normalization agreements with Arab and Muslim states following the Abraham Accords, while Israeli intelligence and political leaders continue to examine how Hamas succeeded in convincing Israel before October 7, 2023, that it was increasingly interested in economic stability rather than a major confrontation.

The Israeli reports did not say whether the country that allegedly received the proposal accepted the advice, whether it subsequently entered negotiations with Israel, or how far any such talks progressed.

They also did not indicate whether Israeli intelligence believes a future attack was actually being prepared, as opposed to the proposal having merely been raised during discussions.

Because military censorship continues to prohibit publication of the countries’ identities, the allegation cannot currently be assessed against the public positions or diplomatic contacts of the governments involved.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir seized on the disclosure to argue against basing Israeli security policy on diplomatic guarantees from neighboring countries.

“Behind all these conceptual agreements are lies and deception,” Ben-Gvir said Monday.

He said Israel should instead rely on military strength, arguing that agreements could be used to create a false sense of security before another attack.

“These agreements are intended to lull us ahead of the next blow,” he said.

Ben-Gvir linked the report to the failures preceding the October 7 attack, when Hamas-led terrorists invaded southern Israel after years in which Israeli officials increasingly believed the terror group was deterred and focused on maintaining economic arrangements in Gaza.

Postwar investigations and reporting have documented how Hamas deliberately sought to reinforce that perception while secretly preparing its assault.

The minister said the answer to threats against Israel should be “strength, determination and absolute victory,” while reiterating his opposition to arrangements that he believes depend on hostile actors honoring long-term commitments.

The report emerged as the Middle East undergoes a broader reshuffling of military and diplomatic alliances following the war involving Iran and amid continued efforts to restructure regional security.

Just three days earlier, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan signed the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement, establishing a collective-defense arrangement under which an armed attack against any one of the three countries will be considered an attack against all three.

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan compared the principle to NATO’s Article 5 collective-defense clause, while stressing that the pact was not directed specifically against Iran or any other country.

The three governments have said the new framework is intended to strengthen collective deterrence and regional security. Turkey has also indicated that other countries could eventually join, with Fidan identifying Egypt as one possible future member.

Pakistan has similarly described the pact as “purely defensive” and open to additional countries willing to participate.

Abraham AccordsArab statespeace deal