US President Donald Trump has built his reputation on making deals. Time and again, he has argued that conflicts that seem impossible to resolve can be solved if the right incentives are offered and the right negotiator is at the table.
That approach may work in business. History suggests it does not always work with ideological enemies.
As the Trump administration pushes forward with its new agreement with Iran, offering sanctions relief, economic normalization, and support for rebuilding the country’s economy, Israelis cannot help but feel a sense of deja vu. We have seen this movie before. We know how it ends when concessions are made to an enemy whose ultimate objective has never changed.
The most painful example is Gush Katif.
In 2005, Israel made one of the most dramatic concessions in its history. More than 8,000 Jewish residents were forcibly removed from their homes in Gaza. Entire communities were dismantled. Synagogues were abandoned. Families lost homes, businesses, schools, and livelihoods built over decades.
The argument was simple: if Israel gave up territory, peace would have a chance.
Many Israelis were told that withdrawal would reduce tensions, improve security, strengthen Israel’s international standing, and create an opportunity for a better future.
Instead, Gaza became a launching pad for terror. Over the next 18 years, Israelis endured thousands of rockets, repeated wars, underground terror tunnels, and the steady military buildup of Hamas.
Then came October 7.
The world witnessed the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. More than 1,200 people were murdered. Entire families were wiped out. Children were slaughtered. Women were brutalized. Communities were destroyed.
The territory that had been handed over in the name of peace became the staging ground for one of the darkest days in modern Jewish history.
The lesson was not that peace is impossible.
The lesson was that concessions cannot create peace when the other side seeks your destruction.
That is the reality many Israelis believe Washington is failing to understand.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the current debate is the growing tendency among some American officials to treat Israel’s concerns as an obstacle to diplomacy rather than the product of hard-earned experience.
Israel is not speaking from theory. It is speaking from history.
Time and again, Israeli leaders have taken enormous political risks for peace, surrendered territory, dismantled communities, released prisoners, and accepted concessions that many believed would reduce conflict. Too often, those concessions were met not with reconciliation but with new waves of terrorism and instability.
To portray Israel as a nuisance, an impediment to peace, or a country that simply “doesn’t get it” is a profound mistake. The United States should be wise enough to recognize that Israel’s warnings are rooted in experience that few nations have endured.
Rather than dismissing Israeli concerns or criticizing its leadership, American policymakers should ask what lessons can be learned from decades of concessions that repeatedly failed to change the intentions of those committed to Israel’s destruction.
Israel has already tested many of the theories now being applied to Iran. It withdrew from territory. It made painful compromises. It gave diplomacy chance after chance. The result was not moderation but October 7. Ignoring those lessons does not make them disappear. It only increases the risk of repeating them on a far larger scale.
Future consequences
Iran is not hiding its intentions. For decades, the regime has openly called for the destruction of Israel and “Death to America.” It has spent billions funding Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and proxy militias throughout the Middle East.
Its leaders have never abandoned their revolutionary ideology. They have never renounced their long-term objectives. Yet today, the administration is betting that economic incentives can change that reality.
Supporters argue that prosperity will encourage moderation and stability. Israel has heard that argument before.
History tells a different story.
The issue is not what happens next month. The issue is what happens five years from now.
President Trump may sincerely believe he is securing peace. But presidents serve limited terms, while the consequences of today’s decisions often arrive long after the negotiators have left office.
By the time the full impact of these concessions becomes clear, another administration may be sitting in the White House, forced to deal with a stronger, wealthier, and potentially more dangerous Iran.
America does not have to agree with every Israeli assessment. But it should be careful about dismissing the judgment of a nation that has repeatedly tested the very theories now being applied to Iran.
Israel’s leaders have lived through the consequences of believing that concessions would moderate extremists. They have watched peace initiatives turn into terror campaigns, and withdrawals turn into security disasters.
That experience should not be mocked, minimized, or brushed aside. It should be respected.
Because when history keeps delivering the same lesson, wisdom means paying attention.
Israel gave up Gush Katif for peace and received October 7 instead.
Before America places its faith in Iran’s promises, it should ask why this time will be different.
The writer is the founder and CEO of the Orthodox Jewish Chamber of Commerce.