Israel unlikely to compromise security for peace agreements with post-October 7 trauma, expert says

Following the October 7 trauma, Israel is unlikely to make significant security concessions in future peace agreements, according to Professor Eytan Gilboa, an expert in diplomacy. This stance makes it difficult for any regional actors to “lull Israel to sleep” before an attack, a tactic reportedly advised by one regional country to another. Gilboa emphasized that the “trauma is so significant and will last for so long that I don't think signing peace agreements in the future that require substantial security compromises… would be possible.”

• Regarding Syria, a peace agreement requiring the concession of the Golan Heights is “not in the cards,” and a proposed non-belligerence agreement without territorial withdrawal is unlikely to materialize due to concerns about commitment implementation.
• For Lebanon, peace is possible if Hezbollah disarms and the Lebanese Armed Forces can effectively police the group, allowing Israel to “take a chance on peace with Lebanon.”
• In Gaza, the Board of Peace's 15-point plan for Hamas disarmament and transfer of power is deemed insufficient by Israeli experts, with Gilboa stating that “Hamas has not changed its goal of destroying Israel,” making meaningful peace negotiations slim.
• Post-October 7, Israel's national security calculus has shifted from focusing solely on an enemy's capabilities to also considering their intentions, meaning any future agreement will be judged primarily on military capabilities rather than stated intentions.