An Islamic country wanted to sign a peace accord in order to give Israel a false sense of security

Something that shouldn't be too surprising was recently reported in the news, and it should make clear why the Religion of Peace will not make it possible to lead a civilized relationship with an Arabic country so long as they continue to adhere to said religion:

Several days have passed since the dramatic, earth-shattering revelation that a leader of one neighboring country advised another neighboring country to sign some sort of sham agreement with Israel in order to lull it into a false sense of security and then launch a surprise attack. The report received extensive media coverage, and the reactions were, naturally, various expressions of shock and concern. The underlying report said officials from one country had urged another to reach an agreement with Israel as a tactical measure while preparing for a future military confrontation. The identities of the countries remain under military censorship.

I, too, insignificant little me, was shocked and appalled. Almost like that girl I once was, back when the Middle East was still new to me, who could not understand how the man in the keffiyeh could spout clichés about peace in English, incite terrorism in Arabic, and still get photographed with world leaders on the White House lawn; who could not understand how people were being blown apart on buses while elsewhere people were receiving prizes. As a child, I thought there must surely be something I was missing, some dramatic, closely guarded detail that defied ordinary logic and somehow, almost supernaturally, justified this circus.

Don't keep yourselves in suspense. There was no such thing. So thoroughly was there no such thing that even if someone took a putty knife to the floors of the censorship authorities' basements, they would not find a shred of evidence justifying the Israeli obsession, born more or less alongside the state itself, with making peace with our enemies.

Is it really far-fetched to assume that even back then, when peace fever was burning almost as fiercely as the fuel tanks of Jerusalem's No. 18 buses, there were reports resembling this week's revelation about the true intentions of Arab leaders, but the censor did not permit them to be published? How much are our worldviews really based on facts if we are unaware of most of them? And how meaningful is our choice of leaders if the issues that truly matter are never discussed at all?

And what's really grating is how the military won't allow anybody to know just which country it was who wanted to pull a taqqiya act upon Israel. What if it's Syria under Ahmed al-Sharaa? I don't know at all, but men like him certainly didn't improve the perceptions of such countries when they commit the persecution and under the table tactics they specialize in.

This is very disturbing info, and should make clear why such countries, with the Religion of Peace now dominating, cannot be expected to be honest about their intentions.