Summary
The regional balance of power has shifted significantly, creating a new reality in which peace can no longer rest on elite agreements and the absence of war alone.
Durable stability requires a deeper transformation in public attitudes, language, and education.
Without societal recognition, legitimacy, and the removal of incitement, formal treaties remain fragile.
Genuine normalization must therefore link diplomatic and economic cooperation to reforms in rhetoric, media, and schooling, making education for coexistence a core pillar of lasting peace.
The strategic reality of the Middle East has undergone a profound transformation over the past two years, particularly since the outbreak of the most recent war. This transformation has become clear, tangible, and impossible to ignore. Israel, currently operating from a position of military, intelligence, technological, and economic strength, has succeeded in stabilizing, and in many arenas reshaping, the regional balance of power. These achievements are not merely tactical battlefield successes; they fundamentally alter regional perceptions of sovereignty, deterrence, and state capacity. They compel both allies and adversaries alike to reassess Israel’s role and standing in the regional order.
This reality necessitates a reexamination not only in Jerusalem, but also in Amman, Cairo, and across the Arab and Islamic worlds. The central question is no longer whether Israel is a permanent fact of life, but rather how the region is to contend with a strong, proactive Israel that possesses the capacity to shape its environment. In other words, Israeli power has generated the need for a regional paradigm shift—first and foremost in the paradigms that define peace itself.
Old Peace in a New World
The peace treaties between Israel and Jordan, and between Israel and Egypt, were signed in a different era. They were agreements between governing elites, born out of clear strategic constraints: military defeat, international pressure, economic necessity, and a desire for stability. They were neither designed nor genuinely intended to create deep, popular peace. Indeed, some parties, Egypt among them, continued to arm themselves for potential conflict with Israel and still do.
Among the Arab public, peace was consequently framed as a condition of non-war, rather than one of genuine reconciliation. for decades, Israel accepted this model almost by default. It provided security, upheld agreements, and avoided unnecessary confrontations—in exchange for what became known as “cold peace.” Yet the new reality, in which Israel demonstrates clear superiority across all arenas of conflict, raises a fundamental question: why should peace remain one-sided at the level of consciousness?
Peace that is not accompanied by a profound cognitive and societal transformation in partner states is inherently fragile. It depends on the will of rulers and the stability of regimes, rather than on the interests of societies. When public opinion continues to be shaped by narratives of delegitimization, incitement, and portrayals of Israel as an existential enemy, what exists is a fragile and contingent arrangement in the shape of a strategic pause.
Education as a Strategic Lever
Rhetoric is not a marginal issue. For years, anti-Israeli rhetoric in surrounding states at peace with Israel was treated as an “internal matter.” Israel preferred not to intervene, not to demand, and not to set conditions. However, now a different approach is required. Rhetoric is not merely language; it is a tool for shaping consciousness. It generates legitimacy for violence, or, alternatively, opens the door to reconciliation, recognition, and sustainable peace.
It is unreasonable to expect Israel to deepen relations, expand cooperation, and assume diplomatic risks while media outlets, mosque sermons, and school textbooks simultaneously depict it as a colonial, demonic, or temporary entity. Genuine peace requires a transformation of language: recognition of Israel’s legitimacy as a sovereign Jewish state, not merely as a geopolitical fact, but as a permanent and integral component of the region.
The most consequential arena for paradigm change remains neither in the military nor in the diplomatic sphere, but in the educational and cognitive domains. In this regard, Education is where the seeds of the next war, or the next peace, are sown. As long as children in Jordan, Egypt, or states aspiring to join the Abraham Accords learn distorted history, geography that erases Israel, and literature that glorifies violent struggle, real peace is unattainable. Israel, from a position of strength, is entitled, and indeed obligated, to set a new standard: no normalization without educational reform; no strategic partnership without education for peace, tolerance, and mutual recognition; and no artificial separation between “pragmatic” foreign relations and inciting domestic education.
This is a legitimate demand, widely accepted in other international contexts. Europe, for example, did not admit states into its institutions without profound changes to curricula, democratic values, and public discourse, Azerbaijan’s—arguably justified—demand within its peace negotiations with Armenia for substantial reforms to school and academic curricula, aimed at eliminating the delegitimization and demonization of Azerbaijan, constitutes a pertinent and instructive precedent. Why, then, should Israel be expected to settle for less?
The Abraham Accords: Opportunity or Illusion?
The expansion of the Abraham Accords represents a significant strategic opportunity, while simultaneously underscoring the conditions required for meaningful normalization. States seeking to join this framework cannot suffice with economic-technological cooperation while preserving cognitive hostility. The Abraham Accords should not become a form of “elite peace bypassing societies,” but rather a peace that connects human communities.
The implication is clear: a state interested in normalization with Israel must not only recognize it diplomatically but also prepare its citizens for peace. Reforming educational content, training teachers, encouraging moderate civic discourse, ending dehumanization, and combating incitement are not intrusions on sovereignty, they are investments in stability.
Power Entails Responsibility
Israel has transitioned from a predominantly defensive state to a powerful and influential regional actor with significant shaping capacity. This power imposes responsibility, but also grants the right to demand more. Peace is not merely the absence of war, but the presence of legitimacy, mutual respect, and education for coexistence.
The next stage of regional peace must not pass solely through signed agreements, but through deep cognitive transformation. Parties pursuing peace with Israel should recognize that lasting peace requires changes in rhetoric, normalization depends on public endorsement, and a sustainable shared future necessitates both a shift in public discourse and the establishment of a new educational framework. This is not merely a moral demand; it is a shared strategic interest for all who seek genuine stability in the Middle East.
