History of non-aggression pacts in Islam.

https://www.jns.org/opinion/the-lessons-of-history-regarding-muslim-non-aggression-pacts

None of us can be an expert on everything, and this is particularly true when considering different cultural perspectives. So, not being an expert on Middle East politics and culture, I read this simply-written article and wondered if it is was a simplistic distortion or not. A number of questions come to mind. [You have to read the short article to get the full import of these questions.]

1. Is his portrayal of traditional Islamic strictures regarding peace-making, and the history thereof, accurate?
2. To what extent are current Arab leaders really constrained by these Islamic strictures regarding treaties and non-aggression pacts? And to what extent can agreements between states outlast their leaders? Because if they are accurate this has important strategic and diplomatic implications.
3. Particularly troubling is the most severe of those restrictions that a permanent peace is never possible with non-Muslim rulers over territory once ruled by Muslims. To what extent is this a real practical constraint?
4. But how can we know for sure? Who has the burden of proof? And even if they are not practically binding, they could conveniently be portrayed as such by those Israeli factions who absolutely do not want any peace agreement.
5. Even if his portrayal of the Islamic strictures is accurate and are binding on Arab leaders, does this constitute a material difference from the kind of peace treaties made by Western states (as he claims it does) or do Western political leaders treat such treaties as binding only so long as it serves their interests?
6. Does this, and all the uncertainty it implies, militate in favor of unilateral Israeli action to 'normalize' the whole territory by bringing it under Israeli law with citizenship available to all peaceful permanent residents? Is this even possible?