> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://beyondthelines.news/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# The Abraham Accords Explained: How Israel and Arab Countries Changed Their Relationships
- URL: https://beyondthelines.news/abraham-accords-explained/
- Published: 2026-10-13T08:16:29.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-13T08:16:29.000Z
- Description: The Abraham Accords reshaped relations between Israel and several Arab countries. Discover the history, political interests, Palestinian perspectives, and lasting impact of these historic agreements.
- Author: Leonie Raffaelli
- Tags: Middle-east, Explainers, Israel

# 

## Introduction — A Diplomatic Turning Point in the Middle East

On September 15, 2020, a ceremony at the White House marked a significant turning point in Middle Eastern diplomacy.

Representatives of Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain gathered in Washington, D.C., to formalize agreements that would establish diplomatic relations between Israel and the two Gulf states.

The agreements became known as the Abraham Accords.

For decades, relations between Israel and much of the Arab world had been shaped by war, territorial disputes, competing national aspirations and the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The establishment of Israel in 1948 had been followed by military confrontation with neighboring Arab states. Subsequent wars in 1956, 1967 and 1973 profoundly influenced regional politics, national identities and international diplomacy.

Although Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979 and Jordan followed in 1994, many other Arab governments continued to reject formal diplomatic normalization with Israel.

The Abraham Accords challenged that longstanding diplomatic pattern.

They demonstrated that some Arab governments were prepared to establish official relations with Israel without waiting for a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.

Supporters described the agreements as a historic breakthrough.

They argued that normalization could encourage regional cooperation, economic development, technological exchange and greater stability.

Critics questioned whether the agreements addressed the underlying causes of conflict.

Palestinian leaders strongly opposed the normalization initiatives, arguing that they weakened the longstanding Arab position that meaningful progress toward Palestinian statehood should precede full diplomatic relations with Israel.

The agreements therefore represented more than a diplomatic ceremony.

They reflected changing political priorities across the Middle East.

Economic diversification, national security, regional competition and relations with the United States all influenced the decisions of the participating governments.

Concerns about Iran's regional influence were also part of the wider strategic environment, although the motivations of individual countries differed.

The United Arab Emirates viewed normalization as an opportunity to expand economic and technological cooperation while strengthening its international position.

Bahrain pursued closer diplomatic relations in a regional environment shaped by security partnerships and Gulf politics.

Morocco subsequently announced normalization with Israel in December 2020, alongside a significant change in American policy concerning Western Sahara.

Sudan also entered a normalization process, although its political instability and subsequent conflict prevented the development of relations comparable to those established by the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.

These distinctions matter.

The Abraham Accords did not create one identical relationship between Israel and every participating country.

Each government approached normalization with different expectations, interests and political constraints.

The agreements also raised important questions about the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Could closer relations between Israel and Arab governments encourage broader regional peace?

Or could normalization reduce diplomatic pressure to resolve Palestinian demands for self-determination and statehood?

The answers remained contested.

Following the Hamas-led attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023, and the devastating war in Gaza that followed, the regional environment changed dramatically.

The attacks killed approximately 1,200 people in Israel, and 251 people were taken hostage. Israel's subsequent military campaign in Gaza caused extensive Palestinian civilian casualties, destruction and displacement.

The conflict placed new pressure on Arab governments that had established relations with Israel.

It also complicated discussions about possible normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Nevertheless, the Abraham Accords remained an important part of the region's diplomatic landscape.

Their significance cannot be understood solely through the signing ceremony of September 2020.

To understand what changed, it is necessary to examine the history that preceded the agreements, the interests that shaped them and the consequences that followed.

This article explores how the Abraham Accords emerged, what they achieved and where their limitations became apparent.

It examines the different experiences of the participating countries, the role of the United States, the Palestinian perspective and the relationship between diplomatic normalization and lasting peace.

Above all, it asks a question that extends beyond formal agreements between governments:

**Can diplomatic relationships between states create a more peaceful Middle East if some of the region's most fundamental political conflicts remain unresolved?**

Understanding the Abraham Accords requires looking beyond the photographs of political leaders shaking hands.

It requires examining the historical grievances, strategic calculations, economic opportunities and human consequences that continue to shape the region.

That is where the story begins.

![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/25/d6/25d63f5d-099c-45e8-ad1b-346bc1c986ba/content/images/2026/10/Sadat_Carter_Begin_handshake_-_USNWR.jpg)

Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, U.S. President Jimmy Carter and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin at the signing of the Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty, Washington, D.C., March 26, 1979.

# Chapter 1 — Before the Abraham Accords: Israel and the Arab World

## Understanding the Historical Background

The Abraham Accords of 2020 did not emerge from an entirely new diplomatic environment.

They were the result of decades of changing relationships between Israel and Arab governments.

To understand why the agreements were considered significant, it is necessary to examine the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the development of regional diplomacy and the political importance of the Palestinian question.

For much of the twentieth century, relations between Israel and neighboring Arab states were shaped by military confrontation and competing national movements.

However, the relationship between Israel and the Arab world was never completely uniform.

Different governments adopted different policies.

Some participated directly in wars against Israel.

Others maintained indirect contacts or pursued limited cooperation when they believed it served their national interests.

Over time, the possibility of diplomatic relations gradually moved from an almost unthinkable proposition to an increasingly important subject of regional debate.

The Abraham Accords represented one stage in that longer historical transformation.

## The Establishment of Israel in 1948

The modern Arab-Israeli conflict developed within the wider historical context of the late Ottoman Empire, British rule in Palestine, Zionism, Palestinian Arab nationalism and the competing claims of two national movements.

During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the Zionist movement advocated the establishment of a Jewish national home in the historic land of Israel and Palestine.

Jewish immigration increased during the period of British administration.

Palestinian Arabs, who constituted the majority of the population during much of the British Mandate, increasingly opposed political developments they feared would threaten their national and political rights.

Tensions intensified during the interwar years.

Violence, political unrest and British attempts to manage competing demands failed to produce an agreed political settlement.

The Holocaust during the Second World War, in which Nazi Germany and its collaborators murdered approximately six million Jews, strengthened international support for the establishment of a Jewish state.

For Jewish survivors and many supporters of Zionism, statehood represented an essential means of national self-determination and security.

For Palestinian Arabs, however, the prospect of partition raised fundamental concerns about political representation, territorial rights and the future of their communities.

In November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 181, recommending the partition of British Mandatory Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, with a special international arrangement for Jerusalem.

Jewish Agency leaders accepted the partition proposal as a basis for statehood, despite reservations.

Arab leaders rejected the plan, arguing that it violated the rights of the Arab majority and allocated an unjust share of territory to the proposed Jewish state.

Violence escalated after the resolution.

On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the establishment of the State of Israel.

The following day, armies from neighboring Arab states entered the conflict.

The war that followed became a defining event for Israelis and Palestinians.

For Israelis, 1948 marked independence and the establishment of a sovereign Jewish state.

For Palestinians, the same period is remembered as the Nakba, meaning catastrophe.

Approximately 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled from their homes during the 1947–1949 conflict.

Hundreds of Palestinian communities were depopulated or destroyed.

The causes of displacement varied by location and included military operations, expulsions, fear, violence and the collapse of local communities.

The war also reshaped the region's political geography.

Israel emerged with territory beyond that proposed for the Jewish state under the 1947 partition plan.

Jordan took control of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

Egypt administered the Gaza Strip.

No independent Palestinian state was established.

The unresolved consequences of 1948 became central to subsequent Arab-Israeli relations.

## The Arab World's Response to Israel

The Arab states did not all approach the conflict in the same way.

Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq participated in the 1948 war, but their political objectives and military strategies differed.

Some leaders viewed Israel as a threat to regional security.

Others were concerned about domestic political opinion, territorial interests or the growing influence of rival Arab governments.

Support for the Palestinian cause became an important part of Arab political discourse.

However, Arab governments often disagreed about how that support should be expressed.

Some favored military confrontation.

Others prioritized diplomatic pressure or domestic political concerns.

The Arab League became an important forum for coordinating positions toward Israel.

Economic boycotts and restrictions on official relations became elements of regional policy.

Yet even during periods of intense hostility, the possibility of indirect communication did not disappear completely.

Governments sometimes explored diplomatic contacts or negotiated practical arrangements through intermediaries.

The distinction between public political positions and private strategic calculations would become increasingly important in later decades.

## The Suez Crisis of 1956

The 1956 Suez Crisis demonstrated how the Arab-Israeli conflict intersected with international power politics.

Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal Company in July 1956.

Britain and France, concerned about their strategic and economic interests, secretly coordinated military action with Israel.

Israel invaded Egypt's Sinai Peninsula in October 1956.

Britain and France subsequently intervened under the pretext of separating the combatants and protecting the canal.

The operation produced a major international crisis.

The United States and the Soviet Union opposed the intervention for different reasons.

International pressure contributed to the withdrawal of the invading forces.

The crisis strengthened Nasser's regional standing and reinforced the importance of Arab nationalism.

It also demonstrated that Israel's security relationships could be influenced by the strategic interests of powers outside the Middle East.

For many Arab societies, the crisis reinforced perceptions of Israel as connected to Western intervention.

For Israel, the conflict was linked to concerns about border attacks, Egyptian military capabilities and restrictions affecting Israeli shipping.

These competing interpretations contributed to the persistence of regional hostility.

## The Six-Day War of 1967

The June 1967 war transformed the political and territorial dimensions of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Tensions had increased through border incidents, regional military mobilization and disputes involving Syria, Egypt and Israel.

In May 1967, Egypt moved troops into Sinai, requested the withdrawal of United Nations emergency forces and closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping.

Israel viewed these developments as a serious security threat.

On June 5, Israel launched airstrikes against Egyptian airfields.

The conflict expanded to include Jordan and Syria.

Within six days, Israel captured the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip from Egypt, the West Bank including East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria.

The territorial consequences were enormous.

Israel gained control over large populations of Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza.

The war also caused further displacement.

For Israelis, the military victory transformed the country's strategic position.

For Palestinians, the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza created new political and legal realities that continue to shape the conflict.

The United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 242 in November 1967.

The resolution emphasized the inadmissibility of acquiring territory by war and called for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the conflict, alongside the termination of belligerency and recognition of every state's right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries.

Its wording and implementation became subjects of prolonged diplomatic disagreement.

Nevertheless, Resolution 242 established an important framework for later negotiations.

The relationship between territory, security and diplomatic recognition became central to efforts to resolve the conflict.

## The 1973 War and the Search for Diplomacy

In October 1973, Egypt and Syria launched coordinated attacks against Israeli forces in the Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights.

The war began during Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar.

Egypt sought to challenge the military and political situation established after 1967.

Syria aimed to recover territory lost during the Six-Day War.

The conflict caused heavy casualties on all sides.

It also drew significant involvement from the United States and the Soviet Union.

The war was accompanied by an oil embargo imposed by Arab oil-producing states against selected countries supporting Israel.

The embargo contributed to a major international energy crisis.

Although the military conflict ended without a comprehensive political settlement, it created new diplomatic opportunities.

Egyptian President Anwar Sadat increasingly pursued a strategy intended to recover Sinai through negotiation.

The United States expanded its role in regional diplomacy.

Disengagement agreements helped reduce some immediate military tensions.

The war demonstrated that military confrontation could alter political calculations.

It also revealed the limitations of continued conflict.

## Egypt and Israel: The First Major Peace Treaty

One of the most important developments in Arab-Israeli relations occurred in the late 1970s.

In November 1977, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat traveled to Jerusalem.

His visit was unprecedented.

An Arab head of state publicly addressed the Israeli parliament and called for a negotiated peace.

The initiative created both hope and controversy.

Many Israelis viewed the visit as an extraordinary diplomatic opportunity.

Many Egyptians supported the possibility of recovering Sinai and ending repeated wars.

However, other Arab governments strongly opposed Sadat's initiative.

Critics argued that Egypt was pursuing a separate agreement without securing a comprehensive settlement of the Palestinian question.

Negotiations continued under American mediation.

In September 1978, Sadat, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and U.S. President Jimmy Carter reached the Camp David Accords.

The following year, Egypt and Israel signed a peace treaty.

The agreement established diplomatic relations and provided for Israel's withdrawal from Sinai.

Israel completed its withdrawal in 1982.

The treaty fundamentally changed the regional security environment.

Egypt, the most populous Arab country and a central participant in previous wars, was no longer in a state of war with Israel.

However, the agreement also created regional political tensions.

Egypt was suspended from the Arab League, and its regional diplomatic position changed significantly.

The treaty did not resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Nevertheless, it demonstrated that formal peace between Israel and an Arab state was possible.

This precedent would later become important in discussions surrounding the Abraham Accords.

## The Palestinian Question and Arab Diplomacy

Throughout the second half of the twentieth century, the Palestinian question remained central to Arab political identity and regional diplomacy.

The Palestine Liberation Organization, established in 1964, became a major representative of the Palestinian national movement.

Its political and military strategies changed over time.

The organization initially emphasized armed struggle.

Later, its leadership increasingly pursued diplomatic recognition and negotiations.

In 1974, the Arab League recognized the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.

The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza after 1967 intensified debates about Palestinian self-determination.

The First Intifada, which began in December 1987, brought widespread international attention to Palestinian resistance against Israeli occupation.

The uprising involved demonstrations, strikes, civil disobedience and violence.

Israeli responses included military and security measures that drew international criticism.

The conflict affected everyday life across Palestinian communities.

Questions involving settlements, borders, refugees, Jerusalem and security remained unresolved.

These issues would later shape Arab governments' reactions to normalization agreements with Israel.

## The Oslo Accords of the 1990s

The end of the Cold War and the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War created new diplomatic opportunities.

The Madrid Peace Conference in October 1991 brought Israeli representatives together with Arab and Palestinian delegations.

The conference established a framework for negotiations.

In 1993, Israel and the PLO announced the Oslo Accords.

The agreement involved mutual recognition between Israel and the PLO.

It established a process intended to create limited Palestinian self-government and facilitate negotiations on outstanding political issues.

The Palestinian Authority was subsequently established.

Supporters hoped the process would lead toward a negotiated settlement.

However, major questions were postponed.

These included Jerusalem, refugees, Israeli settlements, borders and final security arrangements.

Violence, political opposition and mutual distrust undermined the process.

The assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in November 1995 was a major blow to supporters of the peace process.

Over time, the prospects for a comprehensive agreement deteriorated.

The Oslo process nevertheless demonstrated that Israeli and Palestinian leaders could negotiate formal political arrangements.

Its limitations also illustrated the difficulties of implementing agreements when fundamental issues remain unresolved.

![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/25/d6/25d63f5d-099c-45e8-ad1b-346bc1c986ba/content/images/2026/10/Bill_Clinton-_Yitzhak_Rabin_and_Hussein_of_Jordan_during_the_signing_of_the_1994_Israel-Jordan_peace_treaty--2-.jpg)

U.S. President Bill Clinton, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and King Hussein of Jordan during the signing of the Israel–Jordan Peace Treaty on October 26, 1994.

## Jordan and Israel: The Second Peace Treaty

In October 1994, Jordan and Israel signed a peace treaty.

The agreement formally ended the state of war between the two countries.

It addressed borders, security cooperation, water resources and diplomatic relations.

Jordan had maintained a complex relationship with Israel for decades.

The countries shared security concerns and had engaged in contacts before the treaty.

However, public normalization remained politically sensitive.

Jordan's population included a large number of people of Palestinian origin.

The unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict continued to influence domestic attitudes toward the agreement.

The treaty demonstrated that diplomatic normalization could coexist with public disagreement and political tension.

It also showed that practical cooperation on issues such as water and security could develop despite broader regional disputes.

By the end of the 1990s, Egypt and Jordan had established formal peace with Israel.

Most other Arab governments had not.

## The Arab Peace Initiative of 2002

In March 2002, the Arab League adopted the Arab Peace Initiative at its summit in Beirut.

The initiative, originally proposed by Saudi Arabia, offered a framework for comprehensive Arab-Israeli normalization.

It called for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in 1967, a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem consistent with United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194, and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.

In return, Arab states would consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended and establish normal relations with Israel within a comprehensive peace agreement.

The initiative represented an important diplomatic position.

It linked normalization with progress toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

For many Arab governments, this approach reflected the principle that regional recognition of Israel should accompany an acceptable settlement of Palestinian national claims.

Israeli leaders responded differently to the proposal.

Some welcomed elements of the initiative.

Others objected to particular provisions, including the proposed territorial arrangements and language concerning Palestinian refugees.

The initiative did not produce a comprehensive peace agreement.

However, it remained an important reference point in regional diplomacy.

The Abraham Accords would later challenge the sequencing proposed by the Arab Peace Initiative.

Rather than making normalization conditional on a final Israeli-Palestinian settlement, participating Arab governments chose to establish relations with Israel while the Palestinian question remained unresolved.

This distinction became one of the most controversial aspects of the 2020 agreements.

## Quiet Contacts Before 2020

Although formal diplomatic relations were limited, contacts between Israel and some Arab governments developed gradually.

These relationships were often discreet.

They could involve security discussions, economic interests, intelligence exchanges or participation in international forums.

The Gulf states became increasingly important in this process.

Regional concerns about Iran's nuclear program, missile capabilities and relationships with armed organizations influenced security discussions.

At the same time, Gulf governments pursued economic diversification and sought opportunities in technology, investment and international trade.

Israel's technology sector and security expertise attracted interest.

However, the level and nature of cooperation differed among countries.

Some governments were willing to engage in limited contacts while avoiding public recognition.

Others remained strongly opposed to normalization.

These differences reflected national interests, domestic politics and regional relationships.

By the late 2010s, the possibility of more open diplomatic relations had become increasingly visible.

Israeli officials participated in certain international events in Gulf countries.

Political leaders began discussing regional cooperation more publicly.

Yet a formal diplomatic breakthrough still required political decisions that carried substantial risks.

## A Changing Middle East

Several developments contributed to the changing regional environment before 2020.

The 2011 Arab uprisings destabilized established political arrangements across parts of the Middle East.

Civil wars and political crises affected Syria, Libya and Yemen.

The rise of the Islamic State created additional security concerns.

Iran's regional influence became a central issue for several Arab governments.

The United States continued to play an important role in regional security.

Meanwhile, Gulf states increasingly emphasized economic diversification and international investment.

These developments changed how some governments assessed their priorities.

For certain leaders, cooperation with Israel appeared increasingly compatible with national economic and security interests.

However, these calculations did not eliminate public support for Palestinian rights.

Nor did they mean that Arab societies shared a single position toward Israel.

Governments and populations often approached normalization differently.

This distinction would become especially important after the Abraham Accords were announced.

## The Historical Significance of 2020

By the beginning of 2020, the diplomatic landscape had changed considerably from the period following Israel's establishment in 1948.

Egypt and Jordan had signed peace treaties.

Israeli and Palestinian representatives had engaged in formal negotiations.

The Arab Peace Initiative had established a regional framework for normalization linked to Palestinian statehood.

Quiet contacts between Israel and several Gulf governments had expanded.

Nevertheless, the establishment of official relations between Israel and additional Arab states remained politically significant.

The Abraham Accords would introduce a different diplomatic approach.

Instead of waiting for a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian settlement, participating governments prioritized bilateral normalization and the opportunities they believed it could create.

Supporters viewed this as a pragmatic way to encourage regional cooperation.

Critics argued that it weakened an important source of diplomatic pressure concerning Palestinian rights.

Both interpretations would become central to the debate.

The agreements did not erase the history of Arab-Israeli conflict.

They emerged from that history.

And they reflected a region in which governments were increasingly willing to reconsider established diplomatic positions.

## Conclusion — The Road Toward a New Diplomatic Approach

The Abraham Accords were not the beginning of Arab-Israeli diplomacy.

They followed decades of war, negotiations, peace initiatives and gradual changes in regional relationships.

The 1948 war created unresolved questions concerning Palestinian displacement, statehood and national identity.

The wars of 1967 and 1973 transformed regional security and territorial politics.

The Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty of 1979 demonstrated that former enemies could establish diplomatic relations.

The Jordanian-Israeli treaty of 1994 expanded that precedent.

The Oslo Accords created a framework for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, although they failed to produce a final settlement.

The Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 linked comprehensive normalization with a negotiated resolution of the Palestinian question.

By 2020, some Arab governments had begun to adopt a different approach.

They increasingly viewed relations with Israel through the lenses of economic development, technological cooperation, regional security and strategic partnerships.

However, the fundamental political questions surrounding Palestinians remained unresolved.

This created a central tension.

Could normalization help create conditions for peace?

Or would it allow governments to expand diplomatic relations while leaving the underlying conflict untouched?

The Abraham Accords emerged from that unresolved debate.

**To understand why the agreements became possible in 2020, we must next examine the changing strategic interests of Israel, the Gulf states and the United States—and the political calculations that brought them together.**

# Chapter 2 — The Road to 2020: Why Normalization Became Possible

## Introduction — A Region in Transition

The Abraham Accords were announced in 2020, but the political developments that made them possible had been unfolding for many years.

For decades, relations between Israel and most Arab countries were shaped by the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the legacy of regional wars and longstanding diplomatic restrictions.

However, by the beginning of the twenty-first century, the Middle East was experiencing significant political and economic changes.

New security threats emerged.

Regional alliances shifted.

Economic development became an increasingly important priority for Gulf governments.

Iran's expanding regional influence concerned several Arab states.

The United States sought to reshape its diplomatic and security relationships across the region.

At the same time, Israel developed advanced technological industries and maintained discreet contacts with governments that did not officially recognize it.

These developments created an environment in which some Arab leaders began reconsidering whether the absence of diplomatic relations with Israel continued to serve their national interests.

The resulting change did not occur suddenly.

It developed through years of political calculation, informal communication and evolving regional priorities.

Understanding this process is essential to understanding why the Abraham Accords became possible in 2020.

## 1\. The Middle East After the Cold War

The end of the Cold War in 1991 transformed international politics.

The collapse of the Soviet Union changed the strategic environment in which many Middle Eastern governments operated.

For decades, regional states had maintained relationships with competing superpowers.

The United States supported Israel and several Arab governments.

The Soviet Union developed military and political relationships with countries including Syria and Iraq.

Following the Soviet collapse, American influence expanded.

The 1991 Gulf War reinforced the importance of the United States as a major military and diplomatic actor in the Middle East.

After Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, a United States-led international coalition launched military operations that expelled Iraqi forces from Kuwait in early 1991.

The conflict demonstrated the importance of international security partnerships for Gulf states.

It also exposed the vulnerability of smaller countries to regional military threats.

For governments such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, national security became increasingly connected to cooperation with the United States and other international partners.

This changing environment influenced later discussions about regional alliances.

Although formal normalization with Israel remained politically sensitive, some governments began viewing regional security through a broader strategic perspective.

The Arab-Israeli conflict remained important.

However, it was no longer the only issue shaping diplomatic priorities.

## 2\. The Growing Importance of Iran

Iran became an increasingly important factor in regional security calculations.

Following the Islamic Revolution of 1979, the Islamic Republic developed a foreign policy that challenged several established regional relationships.

Iran's leadership opposed Israel and criticized the American military presence in the Middle East.

Tehran also developed relationships with political movements and armed organizations across the region.

These included Hezbollah in Lebanon and, later, various Iraqi and Palestinian organizations.

Iran's regional strategy was shaped partly by its experience during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980–1988.

That conflict caused enormous destruction and reinforced Iranian concerns about external military threats.

Iran subsequently invested in missile capabilities, military institutions and relationships with regional partners.

For several Gulf governments, these developments raised serious security concerns.

However, Iran's relationships with Arab states were never identical.

Some countries viewed Tehran primarily as a strategic rival.

Others maintained diplomatic or economic cooperation despite disagreements.

Oman, for example, developed a reputation for maintaining communication with competing regional powers.

Qatar also maintained important relationships with Iran, influenced partly by shared energy interests and regional political considerations.

The United Arab Emirates combined substantial economic connections with Iran and concerns about Iranian military and regional activities.

This complexity matters.

The emergence of the Abraham Accords cannot be explained simply as an alliance against Iran.

Nevertheless, shared concerns about Iranian capabilities and regional influence helped create opportunities for closer communication between Israel and certain Arab governments.

## 3\. Iran's Nuclear Programme and Regional Security

Iran's nuclear programme became a major international issue during the early 2000s.

In 2002, information about previously undeclared nuclear facilities brought renewed attention to Iranian nuclear activities.

The International Atomic Energy Agency subsequently investigated Iran's nuclear programme and its compliance with safeguards obligations.

Iran maintained that its nuclear activities were intended for peaceful purposes.

Israel expressed concern that Iran could develop the capability to produce nuclear weapons.

Several Gulf governments also viewed the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran as a serious regional security concern.

The nuclear dispute became a central issue in international diplomacy.

Negotiations involving Iran, the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany eventually produced the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in July 2015.

The agreement established restrictions on certain Iranian nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief.

It also introduced extensive monitoring and verification arrangements.

Supporters argued that the agreement reduced the risk of nuclear proliferation and created a diplomatic alternative to military confrontation.

Critics questioned whether the restrictions were sufficiently comprehensive or durable.

Israel's government strongly opposed the agreement.

Some Gulf governments expressed reservations, particularly about whether it adequately addressed Iran's regional activities.

In May 2018, the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA and reimposed sanctions.

Iran later exceeded several of the agreement's nuclear limits.

The deterioration of the nuclear agreement intensified regional uncertainty.

For Israel and some Gulf governments, concerns about Iran reinforced the perceived value of security cooperation.

However, their approaches remained different.

The Gulf states also had strong reasons to avoid direct military confrontation with Iran, particularly because of their geographical proximity and economic vulnerability.

## 4\. The Arab Uprisings of 2011

The wave of protests and political upheavals that began in Tunisia in late 2010 transformed the Middle East and North Africa.

The demonstrations, commonly known as the Arab Spring, spread to countries including Egypt, Libya, Syria, Bahrain and Yemen.

Protesters demanded different combinations of political reform, economic opportunity, accountability and an end to authoritarian rule.

The outcomes varied considerably.

In Tunisia, the uprising initially led to a democratic transition, although the country's political trajectory later changed.

In Egypt, President Hosni Mubarak resigned in February 2011.

Following subsequent political instability, the military removed President Mohamed Morsi from office in July 2013.

In Libya, the uprising developed into armed conflict and the collapse of Muammar Gaddafi's government.

In Syria, protests were met with violent repression and escalated into a devastating civil war.

Bahrain experienced significant demonstrations that were suppressed by the government with support from Gulf partners.

Yemen entered a prolonged period of political instability and war.

These developments reshaped regional security priorities.

For several Gulf monarchies, the uprisings raised concerns about domestic stability, political movements and the possibility of regional conflict spreading across borders.

Governments increasingly prioritized regime security, economic resilience and strategic partnerships.

The changing regional environment also altered the relative importance of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in some governments' foreign policy calculations.

This did not mean that the Palestinian question disappeared.

Rather, other immediate concerns increasingly competed for political attention.

## 5\. The Syrian Civil War and Regional Competition

The Syrian conflict became one of the most consequential developments in the region after 2011.

What began as protests against President Bashar al-Assad developed into a prolonged civil war involving Syrian government forces, opposition organizations, extremist groups and foreign powers.

Iran provided military, financial and political support to Assad's government.

Hezbollah also became involved in the conflict on the government's side.

Russia intervened militarily in support of Assad in 2015.

Israel viewed the expansion of Iranian and Hezbollah military activity in Syria as a significant security concern.

Israeli forces carried out numerous strikes against targets described by Israeli officials as connected to Iranian military infrastructure or weapons transfers.

The conflict therefore created another arena for confrontation between Israel and Iran.

For Gulf governments, Syria became part of a wider struggle over regional influence.

However, their policies differed and evolved over time.

Some initially supported Syrian opposition groups.

Others later pursued renewed diplomatic engagement with Damascus.

The Syrian war illustrated how the Middle East had become increasingly shaped by overlapping conflicts.

The consequences extended beyond Syria.

Millions of Syrians were displaced.

Neighboring countries faced humanitarian and economic pressures.

Regional governments reconsidered their security relationships.

These developments contributed to a political environment in which some states began prioritizing strategic flexibility over longstanding diplomatic positions.

## 6\. Economic Transformation in the Gulf

Security concerns were only part of the story.

Economic transformation also played an important role in creating conditions for normalization.

For decades, oil and gas revenues had supported economic development across the Gulf.

However, several governments recognized the risks of relying too heavily on hydrocarbon income.

They began developing strategies intended to diversify their economies.

The United Arab Emirates became particularly active in expanding sectors such as tourism, aviation, logistics, finance and technology.

Dubai developed into an international business and transportation center.

Abu Dhabi invested in infrastructure, renewable energy, advanced industries and international partnerships.

These economic ambitions encouraged the government to develop relationships beyond traditional regional alliances.

Israel offered potential opportunities in several sectors.

Israeli companies had developed expertise in cybersecurity, medical technology, agricultural innovation, water management and advanced research.

Cooperation could provide access to commercial partnerships and technological knowledge.

From the Israeli perspective, closer relations with wealthy Gulf economies offered new markets, investment opportunities and international connections.

Economic cooperation therefore became an important incentive for normalization.

However, expectations of economic benefits should be distinguished from benefits that were actually realized after 2020.

The announcement of a diplomatic agreement does not automatically guarantee successful commercial cooperation.

Political conditions, regulations, business interests and regional instability all influence the results.

## 7\. Israel's Technology and Innovation Economy

Israel's economic development influenced how some regional governments viewed potential cooperation.

Over several decades, Israel developed a substantial technology sector.

Research institutions, private investment, government programmes and military-related technological development contributed to growth in areas including software, cybersecurity, communications and medical technology.

Israeli agricultural research also developed technologies intended to improve water efficiency and agricultural production in challenging environments.

These capabilities attracted international commercial interest.

For Gulf governments pursuing economic diversification, technological partnerships offered potential advantages.

Water management was particularly relevant.

Several countries in the region face severe water scarcity.

Agricultural innovation and efficient resource management are therefore important economic and environmental priorities.

Cybersecurity also became increasingly significant as governments expanded digital infrastructure.

However, technology cooperation can raise difficult questions.

Cybersecurity tools may have legitimate defensive applications.

Some surveillance technologies can also be used in ways that threaten privacy and human rights.

Any assessment of economic cooperation must therefore consider not only commercial benefits but also the potential social and political consequences.

Nevertheless, the prospect of technological exchange was one of the factors that made closer relations with Israel attractive to certain governments.

## 8\. Quiet Diplomatic Contacts Before Normalization

Although most Gulf governments did not maintain formal diplomatic relations with Israel before 2020, communication was not entirely absent.

Over time, limited contacts developed through international conferences, business relationships, security discussions and unofficial diplomatic channels.

The extent of these relationships varied by country.

Some contacts were public.

Others remained confidential.

In 2018, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Oman and met Sultan Qaboos bin Said.

The visit demonstrated that high-level political contact could occur even without formal diplomatic relations.

Oman had maintained a distinctive diplomatic position, emphasizing dialogue with a wide range of regional actors.

Other developments suggested that the political environment was changing.

Israeli representatives participated in selected international events in Gulf countries.

Business interests explored potential cooperation.

Regional security discussions increasingly involved shared concerns about Iran.

These contacts did not amount to full normalization.

They did, however, help establish communication channels and reduce some of the practical barriers to official relations.

The transition from discreet contact to public diplomacy required political decisions that carried domestic and regional consequences.

## 9\. The United States and Regional Diplomacy

The United States played a central role in the diplomatic process that eventually produced the Abraham Accords.

American policy toward the Middle East has long involved relationships with Israel, Gulf states and other regional governments.

These relationships include military assistance, intelligence cooperation, arms sales, economic interests and diplomatic engagement.

The Trump administration entered office in January 2017 with a strong emphasis on supporting Israel and confronting Iran.

The administration also pursued closer relationships with several Gulf governments.

This approach created opportunities for diplomatic initiatives involving countries that shared certain American strategic priorities.

However, the interests of the participating governments were not identical.

Israel sought diplomatic recognition, regional integration and expanded security relationships.

The United Arab Emirates sought economic opportunities, strategic cooperation and international political advantages.

Bahrain operated within a regional security environment strongly influenced by its relationships with Saudi Arabia and the United States.

American officials sought to present normalization as a significant diplomatic achievement.

The administration's role included political mediation, negotiations and efforts to connect bilateral agreements with broader regional objectives.

The eventual accords therefore reflected both regional decisions and American diplomatic involvement.

## 10\. The Trump Administration's Middle East Peace Plan

In January 2020, the Trump administration presented a proposal titled *Peace to Prosperity: A Vision to Improve the Lives of the Palestinian and Israeli People*.

The plan outlined a proposed framework for addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It included provisions concerning territory, security, economic development and a possible future Palestinian state subject to extensive conditions.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed the proposal.

Palestinian leaders rejected it, arguing that it failed to meet fundamental Palestinian political and national demands.

The plan was controversial partly because of its approach to Israeli settlements and the territorial arrangements it proposed.

It also reflected the administration's broader effort to reshape regional diplomacy.

The failure to secure Palestinian support did not end American diplomatic activity.

Instead, negotiations increasingly focused on the possibility of normalization between Israel and individual Arab governments.

This represented an important shift.

Rather than treating Israeli-Palestinian agreement as a necessary first step toward broader regional normalization, the administration pursued bilateral agreements that could proceed independently.

The approach would become central to the Abraham Accords.

## 11\. The United Arab Emirates and the Annexation Debate

One of the most important immediate developments preceding the Abraham Accords involved Israeli plans concerning parts of the occupied West Bank.

Following political negotiations in Israel during 2020, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government discussed applying Israeli sovereignty to areas of the West Bank.

The proposals were widely described internationally as annexation plans.

Such measures raised serious legal and diplomatic concerns.

The West Bank is considered occupied territory under the prevailing international legal framework, and unilateral annexation would conflict with the prohibition on acquiring territory by force.

The United Arab Emirates publicly warned against the consequences of annexation.

In June 2020, the UAE's ambassador to the United States, Yousef Al Otaiba, published an article in the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth warning that annexation would undermine prospects for closer relations.

The intervention was significant.

It communicated directly with an Israeli audience and connected the possibility of normalization with Israeli decisions concerning the West Bank.

On August 13, 2020, the United States, Israel and the United Arab Emirates announced an agreement to normalize relations.

As part of the announcement, Israel agreed to suspend the declaration of sovereignty over areas outlined in the American peace plan.

The UAE presented the suspension as an important diplomatic achievement.

Critics argued that suspension did not amount to a permanent abandonment of annexation ambitions.

The distinction is important.

The announcement did not resolve the status of the occupied West Bank.

Nor did it produce a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian settlement.

However, it provided a political basis for the UAE to justify normalization.

## 12\. Bahrain's Strategic Calculations

Bahrain's decision to normalize relations with Israel followed shortly after the UAE announcement.

On September 11, 2020, the United States announced that Bahrain and Israel had agreed to establish diplomatic relations.

Bahrain is a small Gulf kingdom with significant strategic importance.

It hosts the headquarters of the United States Navy's Fifth Fleet.

Its security relationships are closely connected to the United States and other Gulf monarchies.

Bahrain's political environment also differs from that of the United Arab Emirates.

The country has experienced significant domestic political tensions.

Its population includes a Shi'a Muslim majority, while the ruling Al Khalifa family is Sunni.

However, political views cannot be inferred simply from religious identity.

Bahraini attitudes toward Israel, Iran and normalization have been shaped by a variety of political, historical and social factors.

The government viewed closer relations with Israel partly through the lens of regional security and strategic partnerships.

Economic and technological cooperation also offered potential benefits.

At the same time, normalization remained controversial among parts of Bahraini society.

The government's decision therefore reflected state-level strategic calculations rather than evidence of uniform public support.

## 13\. Saudi Arabia's Influence

Saudi Arabia did not join the Abraham Accords in 2020.

Nevertheless, its regional influence was an important factor in the diplomatic environment.

Saudi Arabia is a major political and economic power in the Gulf.

It also holds particular religious significance because of its custodianship of Islam's two holiest mosques, in Mecca and Medina.

The kingdom has historically played an important role in Arab diplomatic positions concerning the Palestinian question.

The Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 originated from a Saudi proposal.

At the same time, Saudi leaders have pursued policies intended to strengthen national security, diversify the economy and expand international influence.

Saudi Arabia and Israel shared concerns about aspects of Iran's regional strategy.

However, shared security concerns did not automatically translate into formal diplomatic recognition.

Saudi normalization would carry different political and religious implications from agreements involving smaller Gulf states.

In 2020, the kingdom did not establish formal relations with Israel.

Its position nevertheless influenced regional calculations.

Saudi Arabia allowed certain flights connected with the new diplomatic arrangements to use its airspace, an important practical development.

The possibility of future Saudi-Israeli normalization would become a major subject of international diplomacy in subsequent years.

However, it remained distinct from the agreements actually signed in September 2020.

## 14\. The Palestinian Leadership's Response

For Palestinian leaders, the announcement of normalization between Israel and the United Arab Emirates represented a major diplomatic setback.

The Palestinian Authority had long supported the principle that normalization should follow meaningful progress toward ending Israeli occupation and establishing a Palestinian state.

This position was closely connected to the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002.

The UAE agreement challenged that sequence.

Instead of making recognition conditional on a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian settlement, normalization proceeded while the central political dispute remained unresolved.

Palestinian officials criticized the decision.

They argued that it weakened collective Arab diplomatic leverage and risked reducing international pressure concerning Palestinian rights.

The UAE defended its decision partly by emphasizing the suspension of Israeli annexation plans.

However, Palestinian leaders questioned whether the suspension provided sufficient protection for their political aspirations.

The disagreement revealed an important division.

Some Arab governments increasingly viewed bilateral normalization as a potential contribution to regional stability.

Palestinian leaders argued that regional peace could not be separated from Palestinian self-determination.

The debate was not merely symbolic.

It concerned the political incentives that might influence future negotiations.

If Israel could establish diplomatic relations with additional Arab states without reaching an agreement with the Palestinians, critics asked, what would encourage Israeli leaders to make concessions concerning occupation and statehood?

Supporters of normalization offered a different argument.

They suggested that closer Arab-Israeli relations could create new diplomatic channels and opportunities to influence Israeli policy.

Whether such influence would materialize remained an open question.

## 15\. Public Opinion and the Limits of Government Diplomacy

The decisions that produced the Abraham Accords were made by governments.

However, relations between states are also influenced by public attitudes.

For many people across the Arab world, the Palestinian question has remained a significant political and moral concern.

Public opinion surveys conducted before and after 2020 indicated that attitudes toward normalization differed considerably across countries and populations.

Views could also change in response to regional events.

Some people supported diplomatic engagement because they believed it could reduce conflict or create economic opportunities.

Others opposed normalization because they viewed it as acceptance of Israeli policies toward Palestinians.

Still others distinguished between maintaining practical contact with Israelis and granting formal political recognition to the Israeli state.

These distinctions matter.

A government signing an agreement does not necessarily mean that its population supports every aspect of the decision.

Similarly, opposition to a normalization agreement does not automatically imply opposition to peaceful relations between individuals.

The political sustainability of normalization may depend partly on whether governments can demonstrate tangible benefits while responding to public concerns.

This tension became increasingly visible after October 7, 2023, and the war in Gaza.

## 16\. Why 2020 Became the Turning Point

By the summer of 2020, several developments had converged.

Israel and certain Gulf governments had already established limited channels of communication.

Shared concerns about regional security had encouraged strategic discussions.

Economic diversification created incentives for technological and commercial cooperation.

The Trump administration was actively pursuing diplomatic agreements.

The UAE's opposition to Israeli annexation plans created an opportunity to connect normalization with a specific political concession.

These factors did not eliminate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Nor did they remove disagreements between Israel and Arab societies.

However, they changed the calculations of the governments involved.

For the UAE, normalization could be presented as a diplomatic initiative intended to prevent annexation while opening new economic and strategic opportunities.

For Israel, the agreement offered recognition from an influential Arab state without requiring a comprehensive settlement with the Palestinians.

For the United States, it represented a major foreign policy achievement.

For Bahrain, the process offered an opportunity to strengthen regional and international partnerships.

The result was a diplomatic breakthrough that reflected changing priorities rather than the resolution of longstanding conflicts.

## 17\. A New Approach to Regional Diplomacy

The Abraham Accords introduced a different approach to Arab-Israeli normalization.

Previous major diplomatic initiatives had often linked broader regional recognition of Israel to progress on the Palestinian question.

The agreements of 2020 demonstrated that some Arab governments were prepared to separate these issues.

This did not mean the Palestinian question had disappeared from regional politics.

It remained central to the concerns of millions of people.

Nor did it mean that the new relationships would be free from political controversy.

Instead, the accords revealed that national governments were increasingly willing to pursue bilateral interests even when a comprehensive regional settlement remained unavailable.

This shift had important consequences.

It created opportunities for cooperation.

It also raised questions about the relationship between diplomatic normalization and conflict resolution.

Would new partnerships encourage greater stability?

Could economic integration help reduce political hostility?

Would Arab governments gain greater influence over Israeli policy?

Or would normalization weaken the connection between regional diplomacy and Palestinian political rights?

These questions could not be answered at the moment the agreements were announced.

Their significance would become clearer only through the developments that followed.

## Conclusion — The Political Calculations Behind a Diplomatic Breakthrough

The Abraham Accords were the result of a changing Middle East.

They emerged from decades of diplomatic contacts, regional security concerns and economic transformation.

Iran's regional influence contributed to strategic discussions between Israel and several Gulf governments.

The Arab uprisings and subsequent conflicts shifted political priorities.

Economic diversification created new incentives for cooperation.

Israel's technology sector offered potential commercial opportunities.

The United States provided diplomatic mediation and political support.

The debate over Israeli annexation plans in the West Bank created an immediate opening for negotiations with the United Arab Emirates.

However, these developments did not produce a comprehensive regional peace agreement.

The Palestinian question remained unresolved.

Public opinion across Arab societies remained divided.

And the participating governments approached normalization with different motivations.

The significance of 2020 was therefore not that the Middle East had suddenly overcome its historical conflicts.

It was that some governments had decided to pursue a different diplomatic strategy despite those conflicts.

**The Abraham Accords represented a change in how certain governments approached regional relations—not the disappearance of the political disputes that had shaped the Middle East for generations.**

The next chapter examines the moment these calculations became formal agreements.

On September 15, 2020, political leaders gathered at the White House to announce a new phase in Arab-Israeli diplomacy.

The ceremony attracted international attention.

But what exactly did the participating countries sign?

What commitments did they make?

And what did the agreements leave unresolved?

Those questions are essential to understanding the true significance of the Abraham Accords.

# Chapter 3 — September 15, 2020: The Signing of the Abraham Accords

## Introduction — A Historic Day at the White House

On September 15, 2020, political leaders gathered on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C., for a ceremony that marked a significant change in Middle Eastern diplomacy.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stood alongside representatives of two Gulf states: Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates, and Abdullatif bin Rashid Al Zayani, the foreign minister of Bahrain.

U.S. President Donald Trump hosted the ceremony.

The occasion marked the formalization of agreements intended to establish diplomatic relations between Israel and the two Arab countries.

For decades, Israel had maintained formal peace treaties with only two Arab states: Egypt, since 1979, and Jordan, since 1994.

The new agreements represented an important expansion of Israel's diplomatic relationships in the region.

Supporters described the ceremony as a historic breakthrough.

They argued that the agreements could create new opportunities for economic cooperation, technological development and regional stability.

Critics questioned whether normalization without a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would produce lasting peace.

The ceremony was therefore both a diplomatic achievement and a moment of political controversy.

To understand its significance, it is necessary to examine what the participants actually signed, why the agreements differed and what their implementation would require.

## 1\. The Announcements That Preceded the Ceremony

The September ceremony followed two major diplomatic announcements.

On August 13, 2020, the United States, Israel and the United Arab Emirates issued a joint statement announcing an agreement to normalize relations.

The statement described the decision as a diplomatic breakthrough intended to advance peace and regional cooperation.

It also addressed Israeli plans concerning parts of the occupied West Bank.

According to the announcement, Israel would suspend declaring sovereignty over areas identified in the Trump administration's proposed peace plan.

The UAE presented this suspension as an important element of the agreement.

However, the announcement did not establish a permanent prohibition on future annexation proposals.

This distinction would become central to the debate surrounding normalization.

Almost one month later, on September 11, 2020, the United States announced that Bahrain and Israel had also agreed to establish diplomatic relations.

Bahrain's decision expanded the diplomatic initiative beyond the UAE.

The two announcements created the foundation for the September 15 ceremony.

However, the documents signed by the participating countries were not identical.

Understanding those differences is essential to understanding what the Abraham Accords actually established.

## 2\. Why Were They Called the Abraham Accords?

The agreements were named after Abraham, a figure of major religious importance in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

In Jewish tradition, Abraham is regarded as a founding patriarch of the Jewish people.

In Christianity, Abraham is an important figure associated with faith and the biblical covenant.

In Islam, Ibrahim is recognized as a prophet and a central figure in the religious tradition.

The name was intended to emphasize shared historical and religious connections.

It also provided a symbolic framework for presenting the agreements as a step toward coexistence.

However, the religious symbolism should not obscure the political nature of the agreements.

The Abraham Accords were diplomatic arrangements between governments.

They addressed political recognition, international relations and areas of potential cooperation.

Their success depended on government decisions, institutional implementation and the broader regional environment.

Shared religious heritage could provide symbolic meaning.

It could not, by itself, resolve disputes concerning territory, sovereignty, security or national identity.

## 3\. The Participants and Their Political Roles

The ceremony brought together leaders and representatives whose political interests differed.

President Donald Trump hosted the event and presented the agreements as a major achievement of American diplomacy.

His administration had worked with Israel and several Arab governments to advance normalization.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu represented Israel.

For Netanyahu, the agreements demonstrated that Israel could establish new diplomatic relationships with Arab states without first reaching a comprehensive agreement with the Palestinian leadership.

This was politically significant.

For many years, regional normalization had been closely connected to the Palestinian question.

The UAE was represented by Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

The Emirates viewed normalization as an opportunity to expand economic cooperation, strengthen strategic relationships and pursue a diplomatic initiative associated with suspending Israeli annexation plans.

Bahrain was represented by Foreign Minister Abdullatif bin Rashid Al Zayani.

Bahrain's decision reflected its own diplomatic and security calculations, including its relationships with the United States and Gulf partners.

The different motivations of the participants illustrate an important point.

The Abraham Accords were not the product of a single regional objective.

They emerged from overlapping interests that made cooperation politically attractive to the governments involved.

## 4\. What Was Actually Signed?

The phrase *Abraham Accords* is often used as though it refers to one comprehensive agreement.

In reality, the September 15 ceremony involved several related documents.

These included the Abraham Accords Declaration, a bilateral agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, and a declaration concerning peace and cooperation between Israel and Bahrain.

The distinctions matter.

The UAE and Israel signed a treaty titled *Treaty of Peace, Diplomatic Relations and Full Normalization Between the United Arab Emirates and the State of Israel*.

The treaty established a formal framework for diplomatic recognition and bilateral relations.

Israel and Bahrain signed a declaration announcing their intention to establish diplomatic relations and pursue cooperation.

Further bilateral arrangements were needed to implement the relationship.

The broader Abraham Accords Declaration expressed general principles concerning peace, cooperation, mutual understanding and coexistence.

It did not replace the specific legal and political commitments contained in the bilateral documents.

The ceremony therefore combined symbolic declarations with agreements that had different practical and legal implications.

## 5\. The UAE-Israel Treaty

The treaty between Israel and the United Arab Emirates was the most detailed bilateral agreement signed at the ceremony.

It established the foundation for full diplomatic normalization.

The treaty addressed the development of diplomatic relations and cooperation in multiple areas.

These included investment, trade, tourism, healthcare, technology, energy, environmental protection and other sectors.

The agreement reflected the UAE's broader economic strategy.

The Emirates had invested heavily in developing an internationally connected economy.

Israel offered potential partnerships in technology, research, agriculture and advanced industries.

For Israel, the treaty opened opportunities for trade, investment and diplomatic engagement with an influential Gulf economy.

The agreement also had strategic significance.

It demonstrated that a major Arab government was prepared to establish formal relations with Israel despite the absence of a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.

However, the treaty did not resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Nor did it create a comprehensive regional security arrangement.

It established a bilateral relationship whose practical consequences would depend on implementation.

## 6\. Bahrain's Agreement With Israel

Bahrain's agreement with Israel followed a somewhat different process.

The declaration signed on September 15 established the political basis for normalization.

It expressed the intention to develop diplomatic relations and cooperation.

Subsequent agreements and diplomatic exchanges were required to implement those commitments.

In October 2020, Israeli and Bahraini representatives signed additional documents concerning the establishment of diplomatic relations and cooperation.

Bahrain's participation was significant because of its regional position.

The kingdom hosts the headquarters of the United States Navy's Fifth Fleet.

It maintains close security relationships with the United States and other Gulf governments.

These relationships influenced Bahrain's foreign policy environment.

However, Bahrain's motivations should not be treated as identical to those of the UAE.

The UAE placed considerable emphasis on economic opportunities and the diplomatic significance of suspending annexation plans.

Bahrain's normalization process reflected its own security relationships, political priorities and international partnerships.

The different agreements demonstrate that the Abraham Accords were a framework for multiple bilateral relationships rather than one uniform regional treaty.

## 7\. The Question of Diplomatic Recognition

One of the most important consequences of the agreements was the establishment of official diplomatic relations.

Diplomatic recognition allows governments to communicate through formal channels.

It creates opportunities for embassies, official visits and bilateral agreements.

It also provides a framework for cooperation between government institutions.

Before 2020, Israel's formal diplomatic relationships in the Arab world were limited.

The agreements with the UAE and Bahrain expanded those relationships.

However, normalization is a process rather than a single event.

Signing an agreement does not automatically establish every element of diplomatic cooperation.

Embassies must be opened.

Diplomats must be appointed.

Legal and administrative arrangements must be developed.

Commercial relationships require regulatory frameworks.

Travel arrangements may require new aviation agreements and visa policies.

The significance of the Abraham Accords therefore depended partly on what happened after the ceremony.

The public signing marked the beginning of a new phase.

The practical development of relations would take place over subsequent months and years.

## 8\. The Annexation Issue

The question of Israeli annexation plans in the occupied West Bank was one of the most controversial elements of the UAE agreement.

In 2020, Prime Minister Netanyahu had discussed extending Israeli sovereignty to parts of the West Bank.

Such a move would have had major consequences for the prospects of a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian settlement.

The UAE publicly opposed the proposal.

Its ambassador to the United States, Yousef Al Otaiba, warned that annexation would undermine opportunities for closer relations.

The August 13 announcement linked normalization with Israel's decision to suspend the declaration of sovereignty over relevant areas.

The UAE described the suspension as a diplomatic achievement.

Israeli officials, however, did not uniformly present the decision as a permanent abandonment of annexation.

Netanyahu indicated that annexation remained part of his political agenda, even though implementation was suspended.

This created differing interpretations of the agreement.

For the UAE, normalization could be defended as a step that prevented an immediate unilateral move.

For Palestinian critics, the suspension did not provide a sufficient guarantee against future annexation.

The distinction between suspension and permanent cancellation is therefore essential.

The Abraham Accords did not determine the final status of the West Bank.

They did not establish Palestinian statehood.

They did not resolve disputes concerning Israeli settlements, Jerusalem or borders.

The annexation issue was an important part of the diplomatic negotiations, but the broader territorial conflict remained unresolved.

## 9\. The Palestinian Response

Palestinian leaders strongly criticized the normalization agreements.

The Palestinian Authority argued that the decisions undermined the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002.

That initiative had linked comprehensive normalization with Israel to a negotiated settlement involving Palestinian statehood and Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in 1967.

The Abraham Accords reversed the expected sequence.

Participating Arab governments established relations with Israel before a final Israeli-Palestinian agreement.

Palestinian officials viewed this as a weakening of collective Arab diplomatic leverage.

They argued that normalization reduced incentives for Israeli leaders to make concessions concerning Palestinian national rights.

However, Palestinian political opinion was not completely uniform.

Different political movements, civil society organizations and individuals approached regional diplomacy from different perspectives.

Some emphasized the importance of maintaining Arab diplomatic pressure.

Others questioned whether longstanding diplomatic restrictions had produced meaningful progress toward Palestinian statehood.

Nevertheless, the official Palestinian leadership's response was strongly negative.

The agreements created a new diplomatic reality in which the Palestinian question remained central to public debate but was no longer treated by all Arab governments as a prerequisite for normalization.

## 10\. Support Across the Arab World

Reactions across the Arab world varied.

Some governments welcomed the agreements as an opportunity to strengthen regional cooperation.

Others expressed concern that normalization could undermine Palestinian political aspirations.

Egypt and Jordan, which already maintained peace treaties with Israel, responded within the context of their established diplomatic relationships.

Saudi Arabia did not join the agreements.

Its leadership continued to emphasize the importance of Palestinian statehood in its official diplomatic position.

Oman had maintained contacts with Israel before 2020 but did not establish full diplomatic relations through the Abraham Accords.

Qatar maintained a different diplomatic approach, including its role in regional mediation.

Kuwait continued to oppose normalization without progress on Palestinian rights.

These differences illustrate why the term *Arab world* should not be treated as describing a single political position.

Arab governments have different security concerns, economic priorities and domestic political circumstances.

Public attitudes also differ.

Government support for normalization does not necessarily indicate broad public approval.

Similarly, government opposition does not mean that all citizens hold identical views.

The Abraham Accords revealed both the possibilities and divisions within regional diplomacy.

## 11\. The United States as Diplomatic Mediator

American diplomacy played a central role in the agreements.

The Trump administration sought to strengthen relationships between Israel and selected Arab governments.

Its broader regional policy emphasized support for Israel, opposition to Iran's regional activities and close cooperation with Gulf partners.

The administration viewed normalization as a way to expand regional cooperation.

It also presented the agreements as evidence that progress in Arab-Israeli diplomacy could occur without first resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

American officials helped facilitate negotiations and announcements.

However, the participating governments made decisions based on their own political interests.

The United States did not simply impose identical arrangements on the countries involved.

Each agreement reflected negotiations concerning particular priorities.

American diplomatic influence was nevertheless important in connecting those interests and presenting normalization as part of a broader regional initiative.

## 12\. Arms Sales and Strategic Incentives

The Abraham Accords were accompanied by wider discussions about security cooperation and American arms sales.

One of the most prominent issues concerned the United Arab Emirates' interest in acquiring advanced American military equipment, including F-35 fighter aircraft.

The Trump administration later notified Congress of a proposed major arms sale to the UAE.

The issue generated debate in the United States and Israel.

Israel has long benefited from an American policy intended to preserve its qualitative military edge in the Middle East.

American officials therefore faced questions about how arms sales to Gulf partners might affect Israeli security.

The proposed sale was politically connected to the broader diplomatic environment surrounding normalization.

However, it should not be presented as a clause of the UAE-Israel treaty itself.

The treaty did not require the United States to transfer F-35 aircraft.

Arms sales were subject to separate American legal and political procedures.

This distinction is important because diplomatic agreements can be accompanied by political incentives that are not legally part of the signed documents.

## 13\. Economic Expectations

The signing ceremony generated considerable interest in the economic possibilities of normalization.

Business leaders and government officials discussed potential cooperation in several sectors.

These included technology, finance, tourism, aviation, agriculture, energy and healthcare.

The UAE's economic diversification strategy created opportunities for international partnerships.

Israel's technology and research sectors offered potential areas of cooperation.

Commercial aviation was particularly significant.

Direct flights between Israel and the UAE could facilitate tourism, business travel and investment.

Financial institutions could develop relationships that had previously been restricted.

Companies could explore joint projects and new markets.

However, economic expectations should be distinguished from measurable results.

The ceremony established a political framework.

Actual trade flows, investments and business partnerships developed later.

Their success depended on market conditions, regulations, political stability and the willingness of companies to cooperate.

The long-term economic consequences would therefore require separate examination.

## 14\. The Religious Symbolism of the Ceremony

The choice of the name *Abraham Accords* reflected an effort to frame the agreements around shared religious heritage.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam all recognize Abraham as an important figure.

This symbolism was intended to emphasize historical connections between communities.

The White House ceremony also included language about peace, coexistence and mutual understanding.

However, religious symbolism can be interpreted differently.

Supporters viewed it as an expression of shared values.

Critics questioned whether the language of coexistence adequately addressed the political realities of occupation, displacement and regional inequality.

The agreements were signed by governments rather than religious communities.

They did not resolve theological differences.

Nor did they establish a comprehensive programme for interfaith reconciliation.

The symbolism nevertheless became an important part of how the agreements were presented internationally.

It helped communicate a message of regional transformation.

Whether that message would translate into deeper social relationships remained uncertain.

## 15\. Media Coverage and International Attention

The signing ceremony received extensive international media coverage.

Images of political leaders standing together at the White House became central to the public presentation of the agreements.

For supporters, the photographs represented a new era of regional diplomacy.

They suggested that longstanding political barriers could be overcome.

For critics, the images raised different questions.

They asked whether diplomatic recognition between governments should be described as peace when the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remained unresolved.

They also questioned whether the ceremony reflected broader public attitudes in the participating countries.

Media coverage therefore played an important role in shaping international perceptions.

The agreements were often described as historic.

That description reflected their significance as new diplomatic relationships.

However, it did not establish that the agreements would resolve the region's underlying conflicts.

A careful assessment requires distinguishing the symbolic importance of the ceremony from the practical consequences of the documents.

## 16\. What the Agreements Did Not Include

Understanding the limitations of the Abraham Accords is as important as understanding their achievements.

The agreements did not establish an independent Palestinian state.

They did not determine the final borders between Israel and a future Palestinian state.

They did not resolve the status of Jerusalem.

They did not settle the Palestinian refugee question.

They did not end Israeli occupation of the West Bank.

They did not create a comprehensive peace agreement between Israel and all Arab countries.

They did not establish a single collective military alliance among the participating states.

They also did not guarantee that normalization would produce permanent regional stability.

Instead, the agreements established or initiated specific bilateral diplomatic relationships.

Their wider significance depended on how those relationships developed and how they interacted with unresolved regional disputes.

## 17\. Why the Ceremony Mattered

Despite these limitations, the September 15 ceremony represented a significant diplomatic development.

The agreements expanded Israel's formal relationships with Arab states.

They demonstrated that some Arab governments were prepared to pursue normalization without a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian settlement.

They created opportunities for trade, tourism, investment and political cooperation.

They also reflected changing regional priorities.

Security concerns, economic diversification and international partnerships increasingly influenced diplomatic decisions.

However, the agreements did not eliminate longstanding disagreements.

The Palestinian question remained unresolved.

Regional tensions involving Iran continued.

Public attitudes toward normalization remained complex.

The ceremony therefore marked an important change in diplomacy rather than the completion of a regional peace process.

## Conclusion — A New Diplomatic Reality

September 15, 2020, became an important date in the history of Arab-Israeli relations.

The signing of the Abraham Accords established a new framework for diplomatic normalization between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.

The agreements were significant because they challenged longstanding assumptions about the sequence of regional diplomacy.

For decades, many Arab governments had maintained that comprehensive normalization should follow a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Abraham Accords demonstrated that some governments were prepared to pursue bilateral relationships before such a settlement.

Supporters viewed this as a practical approach to regional cooperation.

Critics argued that it weakened diplomatic pressure concerning Palestinian rights.

The agreements created opportunities for economic development, technological exchange and official communication.

However, they also exposed the limits of government-to-government diplomacy.

Formal recognition does not automatically resolve territorial disputes.

Economic cooperation does not guarantee political reconciliation.

And a ceremony celebrating peace cannot, by itself, eliminate the experiences of communities living with unresolved conflict.

**The Abraham Accords changed diplomatic relationships in the Middle East, but their long-term significance would depend on what governments did after the signing ceremony—and whether normalization could contribute to a broader and more inclusive regional peace.**

The next chapter examines the country that played a central role in the diplomatic breakthrough.

The United Arab Emirates became the first Gulf Arab state to establish full diplomatic relations with Israel.

Its decision opened new opportunities for trade, tourism, investment and technological cooperation.

But what happened after the agreement was signed?

How did the relationship develop?

And what challenges emerged as normalization moved from political promises to practical implementation?

These questions are central to understanding the UAE-Israel partnership.

![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/25/d6/25d63f5d-099c-45e8-ad1b-346bc1c986ba/content/images/2026/10/Historic_First_Visit_of_Emirati_Delegation_in_Israel_-50509773236-.jpg)

A delegation from the United Arab Emirates visits Israel on October 20, 2020, as both countries move toward implementing the Abraham Accords through agreements on investment, scientific cooperation, aviation and travel.

# Chapter 4 — The United Arab Emirates and Israel: A New Partnership

## Introduction — From Diplomatic Recognition to Practical Cooperation

When Israel and the United Arab Emirates announced the normalization of diplomatic relations on August 13, 2020, the decision marked a significant change in the political landscape of the Middle East.

The UAE became the first Gulf Arab state to establish full diplomatic relations with Israel.

For decades, relations between Israel and most Arab governments had been restricted by the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the broader history of regional confrontation.

The UAE's decision challenged that pattern.

Instead of waiting for a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, the Emirati government chose to pursue direct diplomatic relations with Israel.

Supporters argued that the decision could encourage regional stability, economic development and technological cooperation.

Critics questioned whether normalization would weaken diplomatic pressure concerning Palestinian rights.

The agreement created a new framework for cooperation, but its significance depended on what happened after the signing ceremony.

Diplomatic recognition was only the beginning.

Governments needed to establish embassies, develop legal agreements, facilitate commercial activity and create opportunities for their citizens and businesses to interact.

The relationship also had to withstand political tensions arising from the continuing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The UAE-Israel partnership therefore became an important test of whether the Abraham Accords could move beyond symbolic diplomacy and produce lasting practical cooperation.

## 1\. Why the United Arab Emirates Chose Normalization

The UAE's decision to establish diplomatic relations with Israel reflected several overlapping political and economic considerations.

The Emirates had spent decades developing an internationally connected economy.

Dubai emerged as a major center for aviation, tourism, finance and trade.

Abu Dhabi expanded its investments in energy, infrastructure, advanced industries and international partnerships.

Economic diversification became an important national priority.

Although oil and gas revenues remained significant, Emirati leaders increasingly emphasized the development of technology, innovation, logistics, financial services and other industries.

Israel offered potential opportunities in several of these sectors.

Israeli companies had developed expertise in cybersecurity, agricultural technology, medical research, water management and advanced software.

Closer relations could allow Emirati businesses and institutions to explore partnerships that had previously been politically restricted.

Security considerations also influenced the regional environment.

The UAE and Israel shared concerns about certain aspects of Iran's regional activities, although their policies toward Tehran were not identical.

The UAE maintained important economic relationships with Iran and had strong reasons to avoid direct regional confrontation.

Normalization was therefore not simply the formation of an anti-Iran alliance.

It was part of a broader strategy involving economic development, international influence and diplomatic flexibility.

The UAE also presented the agreement as a means of suspending Israeli plans to annex parts of the occupied West Bank.

This argument became central to the government's public explanation of its decision.

However, the suspension did not resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or permanently settle the question of annexation.

The UAE's decision combined strategic ambition with political controversy.

## 2\. Establishing Diplomatic Relations

The transition from diplomatic announcement to official relations required practical steps.

On September 15, 2020, Israel and the UAE signed their treaty of peace, diplomatic relations and full normalization at the White House.

The treaty established a formal framework for cooperation.

The countries subsequently developed diplomatic missions and appointed representatives.

In January 2021, Israel opened a diplomatic mission in Abu Dhabi.

The UAE established its embassy in Tel Aviv later that year.

The opening of embassies was an important institutional development.

It allowed governments to communicate through permanent official channels.

Diplomatic missions also support commercial relationships, consular services, cultural exchanges and government cooperation.

The establishment of formal relations created opportunities for ministerial visits and negotiations that had previously been difficult or politically sensitive.

However, the existence of diplomatic missions does not mean that governments agree on every issue.

Diplomatic relationships can include cooperation, disagreement and criticism.

This distinction would become increasingly important as the UAE-Israel partnership developed.

## 3\. The First Direct Flights

One of the most visible consequences of normalization was the introduction of direct commercial air connections.

Before the Abraham Accords, travel between Israel and the UAE generally required indirect routes or special arrangements.

The normalization process created opportunities for direct passenger flights.

On August 31, 2020, an Israeli commercial aircraft carried an American-Israeli delegation from Tel Aviv to Abu Dhabi on a historic direct flight.

The flight took place before the formal signing ceremony and became a widely recognized symbol of the emerging relationship.

Commercial aviation services subsequently developed.

Israeli and Emirati airlines began operating routes connecting the two countries.

Direct flights created new opportunities for tourism, business travel and family visits.

They also had symbolic significance.

Travel between countries that had previously lacked formal diplomatic relations became increasingly accessible.

However, the development of aviation links remained dependent on political conditions, security considerations and commercial demand.

Flight schedules and travel arrangements could change in response to regional instability.

The expansion of air travel demonstrated the practical possibilities of normalization, but it did not make the relationship immune to conflict elsewhere in the Middle East.

## 4\. Tourism and Cultural Encounters

Tourism became one of the most visible areas of cooperation after normalization.

Israeli travelers began visiting destinations such as Dubai and Abu Dhabi.

The UAE offered international hotels, shopping centers, cultural attractions and business opportunities.

For many Israeli visitors, the ability to travel openly to a Gulf Arab country represented a significant change.

Emirati visitors also gained opportunities to travel to Israel.

Tourism created possibilities for encounters between people whose governments had previously maintained no formal diplomatic relationship.

Such interactions can influence public perceptions.

Travel allows visitors to experience different societies beyond political headlines.

However, tourism does not automatically create broad social reconciliation.

Visitors may encounter a limited part of another country's society.

Commercial tourism can also develop faster than deeper cultural understanding.

The number and direction of travelers may differ significantly.

Furthermore, public attitudes toward normalization are not necessarily identical to government policies.

Some Emiratis welcomed the opportunities created by diplomatic relations.

Others remained concerned about Israeli policies toward Palestinians.

The same relationship could therefore be viewed as an economic opportunity, a diplomatic experiment or a controversial political decision.

## 5\. Trade and Commercial Cooperation

Trade became a central component of the UAE-Israel relationship.

The establishment of diplomatic relations reduced barriers to direct commercial engagement.

Businesses could explore partnerships more openly.

Financial institutions developed relationships.

Government agencies negotiated arrangements intended to facilitate trade and investment.

The countries identified opportunities in technology, agriculture, healthcare, energy, logistics and other sectors.

The UAE's position as an international commercial hub made it an attractive partner for Israeli exporters and investors.

Israel's research and technology industries offered opportunities for Emirati companies seeking advanced products and services.

However, the economic relationship was not simply a matter of one country selling technology to another.

Both countries had established business networks and international investment strategies.

The partnership created opportunities for joint ventures, distribution agreements and regional expansion.

Trade statistics became an important measure of whether normalization was producing tangible results.

Nevertheless, such figures require careful interpretation.

Different sources may report merchandise trade, services trade, diamond transactions or total bilateral commercial activity using different methods.

A reliable assessment must distinguish these categories and identify the periods being compared.

The broader conclusion is that formal normalization created a framework for direct commercial relationships that had previously faced substantial political restrictions.

## 6\. The Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement

An important development occurred in May 2022, when Israel and the UAE signed a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, commonly known as a CEPA.

The agreement was designed to reduce trade barriers and strengthen economic cooperation.

It included provisions addressing tariffs, market access and commercial relationships.

The agreement entered into force in April 2023.

This represented a significant step beyond the original diplomatic announcement.

The Abraham Accords established the political basis for normalization.

The CEPA created a more detailed framework for economic integration.

For businesses, such agreements can improve predictability and reduce certain costs associated with international trade.

However, their benefits depend on implementation.

Companies must understand applicable regulations.

Governments must administer customs arrangements and other commitments.

Market demand must support commercial expansion.

The agreement demonstrated that the UAE-Israel relationship had developed institutional foundations beyond diplomatic symbolism.

It also illustrated how economic cooperation could continue to be pursued despite political disagreements.

## 7\. Investment and Financial Partnerships

Investment was another important area of potential cooperation.

The UAE has significant financial resources and international investment institutions.

Israeli companies, particularly in technology-related sectors, often seek investment to support research, product development and international expansion.

Normalization created opportunities for connections between these financial and commercial systems.

Investors could explore partnerships involving technology, infrastructure, energy and other industries.

Banks and financial institutions developed channels for supporting commercial activity.

However, announcements of investment intentions should not be confused with completed investments.

A proposed project may be delayed, modified or cancelled.

Likewise, a memorandum of understanding does not necessarily mean that financing has been committed or that a project has been implemented.

For journalism, these distinctions are important.

The success of economic normalization should be measured through verified agreements, completed transactions and demonstrated outcomes rather than political announcements alone.

Nevertheless, the creation of formal investment channels represented a substantial change from the period before normalization.

## 8\. Technology and Innovation

Technology cooperation became one of the most frequently discussed aspects of the partnership.

Israel has developed a substantial innovation economy, including companies working in software, cybersecurity, healthcare, agricultural technology and artificial intelligence.

The UAE has invested heavily in digital transformation and technological development.

Both governments viewed innovation as important to future economic growth.

This created potential areas of cooperation.

Healthcare technology became particularly relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Research institutions and companies explored opportunities involving medical equipment, diagnostics and other health-related technologies.

Agricultural technology offered possibilities for improving food production in challenging environmental conditions.

Cybersecurity became another area of interest as governments and businesses expanded their digital infrastructure.

However, technological cooperation also creates questions concerning regulation, privacy and human rights.

Surveillance technologies can have legitimate security applications but may also be misused.

Responsible cooperation therefore requires attention to how technologies are developed, sold and deployed.

The partnership demonstrated the commercial potential of normalization while also raising questions about accountability and oversight.

## 9\. Water Security and Agricultural Innovation

Water scarcity is one of the most significant environmental challenges facing the Middle East.

The UAE has limited natural freshwater resources.

Its water supply depends heavily on desalination and other managed systems.

Israel has developed substantial expertise in desalination, wastewater reuse and efficient irrigation.

These capabilities created opportunities for technical cooperation.

Agricultural innovation was another area of shared interest.

Both countries face environmental constraints that influence food production.

Technologies involving precision irrigation, controlled-environment agriculture and water management can help improve resource efficiency.

However, technological solutions alone cannot eliminate environmental challenges.

Water security also depends on energy availability, infrastructure, environmental protection and effective public policy.

Climate change may increase pressure on water resources across the region.

Cooperation between Israel and the UAE therefore has potential relevance beyond bilateral commercial interests.

Research and innovation may contribute to wider discussions about sustainable development in arid environments.

Yet the practical impact of individual projects must be evaluated through evidence rather than assumptions about technological potential.

## 10\. Energy and Environmental Cooperation

Energy cooperation formed another part of the normalization agenda.

The UAE is a major oil and gas producer but has also invested in renewable energy and energy diversification.

Israel has developed offshore natural gas resources and renewable-energy technologies.

These different energy profiles created potential opportunities for cooperation.

Discussions included energy infrastructure, renewable technologies and commercial partnerships.

However, some proposed projects generated controversy.

One example involved plans to use existing infrastructure in Israel to transport oil between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean.

Environmental organizations raised concerns about potential ecological damage, particularly around the Gulf of Eilat.

The controversy demonstrated that economic cooperation can create environmental risks.

Projects presented as commercially beneficial may have consequences for local communities and ecosystems.

Environmental assessments, public oversight and regulatory decisions are therefore important.

The example also illustrates why normalization should not be evaluated solely through the number of agreements announced.

The social and environmental consequences of cooperation matter as well.

## 11\. Security Cooperation and Regional Strategy

Security considerations were part of the wider environment surrounding the Abraham Accords.

Israel and the UAE shared concerns about regional instability, missile threats and certain activities associated with Iran and its regional partners.

Both countries maintained close relationships with the United States.

Normalization created opportunities for more open security dialogue.

However, the precise nature of intelligence and defense cooperation is not always publicly disclosed.

Claims concerning covert arrangements require particular caution.

The existence of diplomatic relations does not automatically establish a formal military alliance.

Nor does it mean that the participating governments share identical policies toward Iran, Gaza or other regional issues.

The UAE has maintained diplomatic and economic channels with Iran.

It has also pursued efforts to reduce regional tensions.

This approach reflects the country's geographical position and economic interests.

For the UAE, avoiding a major regional war is a significant national security concern.

For Israel, concerns about Iranian military capabilities and regional armed groups have remained central to security policy.

The partnership therefore developed within a complex strategic environment involving both cooperation and differences.

## 12\. The United States and the F-35 Debate

American military policy became an important subject of discussion following normalization.

The UAE had expressed interest in acquiring advanced American F-35 fighter aircraft.

In November 2020, the Trump administration formally notified Congress of a proposed arms sale that included F-35 aircraft and other military equipment.

The proposal generated political debate.

Israel has long benefited from an American commitment to maintaining its qualitative military edge in the Middle East.

American officials therefore had to consider how advanced arms sales to regional partners might affect Israeli security.

The proposed sale was associated with the broader diplomatic environment surrounding the Abraham Accords.

However, it was not a contractual requirement of the UAE-Israel normalization treaty.

The sale was subject to separate American legal, political and administrative procedures.

Subsequent disagreements over conditions and security requirements complicated the process.

The episode illustrated how normalization could intersect with wider strategic negotiations involving the United States.

It also demonstrated that diplomatic cooperation does not eliminate differences over military technology and national security.

## 13\. The Palestinian Question Remained Unresolved

Despite expanding bilateral cooperation, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remained a major source of political disagreement.

The UAE presented the suspension of Israeli annexation plans in 2020 as an important diplomatic achievement.

However, the agreement did not end Israeli occupation of the West Bank.

It did not establish an independent Palestinian state.

Nor did it resolve disputes concerning settlements, Jerusalem, refugees or borders.

Palestinian leaders criticized normalization because they believed it weakened the diplomatic position established by the Arab Peace Initiative.

The UAE argued that engagement with Israel could create opportunities for dialogue and influence.

These competing arguments reflected different approaches to diplomacy.

One emphasized the importance of maintaining conditions for normalization.

The other emphasized the potential benefits of direct engagement.

The practical question was whether the UAE's relationship with Israel would provide meaningful influence over policies affecting Palestinians.

Answering that question requires examining specific diplomatic actions and their results.

It cannot be determined simply from statements made at the time of normalization.

## 14\. Public Opinion and Social Acceptance

Government-to-government diplomacy does not necessarily reflect public opinion.

The UAE's normalization decision was made by its political leadership.

The agreement created new opportunities for travel, business and official exchanges.

However, attitudes toward Israel and the Palestinian question remained complex.

Some Emiratis welcomed the prospect of regional cooperation and economic development.

Others remained concerned about the political implications of normalization.

Public debate in the UAE also takes place within a political environment where freedom of expression is restricted.

This limits the conclusions that can be drawn from the visibility or absence of public criticism.

Surveys, where available, must be interpreted carefully, including their methodology and the conditions under which respondents express their views.

Social acceptance cannot be measured solely through diplomatic ceremonies or tourism statistics.

The development of meaningful relationships between societies is a longer process.

It may involve education, cultural exchange, personal contact and changing political conditions.

The Abraham Accords created opportunities for such interactions.

They did not guarantee that public attitudes would change in the same direction as government policy.

## 15\. The Impact of October 7, 2023

The Hamas-led attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023, and the war in Gaza that followed placed the UAE-Israel relationship under severe political pressure.

The attacks killed approximately 1,200 people in Israel, and 251 people were taken hostage.

Israel's subsequent military campaign in Gaza caused extensive Palestinian civilian casualties, destruction and displacement.

The humanitarian consequences became a major international concern.

The UAE condemned attacks against civilians and called for measures to protect civilian lives.

It also emphasized the importance of humanitarian assistance and a political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The war intensified public anger across the Arab world.

It complicated the political environment in which normalization had developed.

However, the UAE did not immediately sever diplomatic relations with Israel.

Instead, it maintained official channels while criticizing aspects of the conflict and supporting diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives.

This approach demonstrated both the resilience and the limitations of the relationship.

Diplomatic contact could continue during a crisis.

But continued diplomatic contact did not mean the absence of disagreement.

The war also raised questions about whether normalization could contribute to conflict prevention or diplomatic influence when major violence occurred.

## 16\. Humanitarian Diplomacy and Gaza

The war in Gaza increased the importance of humanitarian diplomacy.

The UAE participated in relief efforts intended to assist Palestinian civilians.

These efforts included medical assistance, humanitarian supplies and support for relief operations.

The Emirates also used diplomatic channels to call attention to the humanitarian situation.

Such activities reflected a broader effort to combine normalization with continued engagement on Palestinian issues.

However, humanitarian assistance and political conflict resolution are different matters.

Providing medical supplies or food can address immediate suffering.

It does not resolve disputes concerning sovereignty, occupation, security or political representation.

A comprehensive assessment of the UAE's role must therefore distinguish humanitarian contributions from diplomatic achievements.

It must also examine whether aid reached intended recipients and whether access restrictions affected relief operations.

The humanitarian crisis highlighted the continuing importance of the Palestinian question in regional politics.

It also challenged the idea that bilateral normalization could be separated completely from the wider conflict.

## 17\. Can Economic Cooperation Survive Political Conflict?

The UAE-Israel relationship raises a broader question about international diplomacy.

Can economic cooperation continue when governments disagree over major political issues?

History suggests that commercial relationships can sometimes survive serious diplomatic tensions.

However, their resilience depends on the circumstances.

Businesses consider political risk, public opinion, regulatory uncertainty and security conditions.

Tourism is particularly sensitive to conflict.

Investment decisions may be delayed when uncertainty increases.

Government cooperation can continue in some sectors while slowing in others.

The Abraham Accords created institutional relationships that did not exist before 2020.

Those institutions may provide channels for communication during periods of crisis.

However, the existence of commercial interests does not guarantee political stability.

Nor does economic integration automatically resolve conflicts involving national identity, territorial rights and security.

The UAE-Israel partnership therefore provides an important case study in the possibilities and limitations of normalization.

## 18\. What Has the Partnership Actually Achieved?

The UAE-Israel relationship produced several identifiable developments after 2020.

The countries established formal diplomatic missions.

Direct travel became possible.

Commercial relationships expanded.

A comprehensive economic partnership agreement entered into force.

Government institutions and businesses developed new channels for cooperation.

These were significant changes from the period before normalization.

However, assessing the overall success of the relationship requires more than identifying agreements.

It requires examining trade data, completed investments, functioning projects and the durability of diplomatic cooperation.

It also requires considering the wider political consequences.

Did normalization contribute to regional stability?

Did it create meaningful opportunities for dialogue?

Did it provide diplomatic influence concerning Palestinian rights?

Did economic benefits extend beyond a limited number of businesses and institutions?

These questions require careful evidence-based analysis.

Some outcomes can be measured through economic and institutional data.

Others involve political judgments that remain contested.

## Conclusion — A Partnership With Opportunities and Limitations

The relationship between Israel and the United Arab Emirates became one of the most important examples of diplomatic normalization following the Abraham Accords.

The UAE's decision in 2020 opened the door to formal political relations, direct travel, economic cooperation and new institutional partnerships.

The relationship developed beyond symbolic diplomacy.

Embassies were established.

Commercial agreements were negotiated.

Businesses explored opportunities in technology, finance, agriculture and other sectors.

The Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement demonstrated a commitment to developing a more structured economic relationship.

However, the partnership also faced significant limitations.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remained unresolved.

Public attitudes toward normalization differed.

Security cooperation operated within a complex regional environment.

The war in Gaza after October 7, 2023, placed additional political pressure on the relationship.

The UAE's decision to maintain diplomatic channels while criticizing the humanitarian consequences of the war illustrated a central tension.

Normalization could create opportunities for communication and cooperation.

It could not, by itself, eliminate the conflicts affecting the region.

**The UAE-Israel partnership demonstrates that diplomatic relationships can change even when longstanding political disputes remain unresolved. Whether those relationships contribute to lasting peace depends on how governments use the opportunities they create.**

The next chapter examines the other countries associated with the Abraham Accords.

Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan each approached normalization with different political circumstances and expectations.

Their experiences demonstrate why the Abraham Accords should not be understood as one identical agreement applied across the region.

Each relationship had its own history, motivations and limitations.

# Chapter 5 — Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan: Different Countries, Different Agreements

## Introduction — One Diplomatic Initiative, Three Different Stories

When the Abraham Accords were announced in 2020, international attention focused primarily on Israel's new relationship with the United Arab Emirates.

The agreement was presented as a historic diplomatic breakthrough and a possible beginning of wider normalization between Israel and Arab countries.

However, the UAE was not the only country involved in the diplomatic developments of that year.

Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan also entered processes intended to establish or restore official relations with Israel.

Their participation created the impression of a broader regional transformation.

Yet the circumstances surrounding each country were fundamentally different.

Bahrain viewed normalization through a combination of regional security concerns, strategic partnerships and economic opportunities.

Morocco approached the process within the context of its longstanding historical connections with Jewish communities, its relationship with the United States and its territorial dispute over Western Sahara.

Sudan's decision emerged during a fragile political transition following the removal of longtime President Omar al-Bashir.

For Sudan, normalization became closely connected to American sanctions policy, international financial relations and domestic political instability.

These differences matter.

The Abraham Accords were not one uniform peace treaty between Israel and several Arab states.

They were a collection of diplomatic initiatives involving countries with different political systems, historical relationships and national interests.

Some agreements led to functioning diplomatic relationships.

Others encountered serious obstacles.

Understanding these distinctions is essential to evaluating what the Abraham Accords achieved and what remained unresolved.

## 1\. Bahrain: A Small Kingdom With Strategic Importance

Bahrain is an island kingdom in the Persian Gulf, situated near Saudi Arabia and connected to it by the King Fahd Causeway.

Although geographically small, Bahrain occupies an important position in regional security.

The country hosts the headquarters of the United States Navy's Fifth Fleet, which operates across strategically important maritime areas.

Bahrain also maintains close political and security relationships with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council members.

These relationships influence its foreign policy decisions.

Bahrain's political system is a hereditary monarchy ruled by the Al Khalifa family.

The country has experienced significant domestic political tensions, particularly concerning political representation, civil rights and the relationship between the government and opposition movements.

These internal circumstances form part of the background against which its normalization decision must be understood.

Bahrain's government viewed diplomatic relations with Israel as an opportunity to strengthen its international position.

However, the decision also generated criticism among parts of Bahraini society.

Normalization therefore reflected government policy rather than evidence of unanimous public support.

## 2\. Bahrain's Security Calculations

Regional security was an important factor in Bahrain's diplomatic approach.

Bahrain has historically maintained a difficult relationship with Iran.

The Bahraini government has accused Iran of interference in its internal affairs, allegations that Tehran has rejected.

The country also depends heavily on relationships with regional and international security partners.

For Bahrain, cooperation with the United States has been especially important.

The American military presence provides a significant element of the kingdom's security environment.

Israel's advanced military capabilities and intelligence expertise created potential opportunities for strategic dialogue.

However, it would be inaccurate to describe Bahrain's normalization decision as the automatic formation of a formal military alliance with Israel.

Diplomatic recognition and military cooperation are different arrangements.

Any specific claims about intelligence sharing or defense operations require independent evidence.

The wider strategic context nevertheless helps explain why Bahrain's leadership considered normalization politically attractive.

The government viewed closer relations with Israel as one element of a broader network of regional and international partnerships.

## 3\. Bahrain's Agreement With Israel

On September 11, 2020, the United States announced that Bahrain and Israel had agreed to establish diplomatic relations.

Four days later, Bahrain participated in the White House signing ceremony.

Bahraini Foreign Minister Abdullatif bin Rashid Al Zayani represented the kingdom.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu represented Israel.

President Donald Trump hosted the event.

Unlike the UAE-Israel treaty, Bahrain's September 15 document was a declaration outlining the intention to establish diplomatic relations and develop cooperation.

Further agreements followed.

On October 18, 2020, representatives of Bahrain and Israel signed a joint communiqué establishing diplomatic relations.

The countries subsequently developed formal diplomatic missions.

These steps created official channels for government communication, commercial cooperation and bilateral engagement.

The agreements also opened possibilities for tourism, technology partnerships and economic exchange.

However, Bahrain's smaller economy and different commercial structure meant that its relationship with Israel was not expected to develop in exactly the same way as the UAE's.

The two Gulf countries shared some strategic interests but pursued normalization under different circumstances.

## 4\. Public Opposition and the Palestinian Question in Bahrain

Bahrain's normalization decision was controversial among parts of its population.

Political activists, opposition figures and civil society voices criticized the agreement.

Some viewed normalization as inconsistent with longstanding support for Palestinian self-determination.

Others objected to the decision-making process or questioned whether the relationship would benefit ordinary Bahrainis.

Public debate in Bahrain takes place within a political environment where freedom of expression and political opposition face significant restrictions.

This complicates efforts to measure public attitudes.

The absence of visible protest cannot automatically be interpreted as public approval.

Similarly, opposition expressed by particular organizations should not be treated as representing every Bahraini citizen.

The Palestinian question remained an important issue.

Bahrain's government continued to express support for a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

However, normalization demonstrated that the government was willing to establish relations with Israel before such a settlement was achieved.

This distinction became a central point of criticism.

The experience of Bahrain illustrates the difference between diplomatic decisions made by governments and the broader process of developing public acceptance.

## 5\. Morocco: A Different Historical Relationship With Israel

Morocco's relationship with Israel differs considerably from those of the Gulf states.

The country has a long Jewish history.

Jewish communities lived in Morocco for many centuries, contributing to its religious, cultural and economic life.

Cities including Fez, Marrakesh, Meknes and Essaouira have important Jewish historical sites.

During the twentieth century, large numbers of Moroccan Jews emigrated, particularly during the decades following Israel's establishment.

Many settled in Israel.

As a result, Israel developed a substantial population with Moroccan family origins.

These connections created a different social and historical foundation for relations between the two countries.

Family histories, religious traditions, music, cuisine and cultural practices continued to connect communities.

Morocco's monarchy has also emphasized the country's Jewish heritage as part of its national history.

However, cultural connections should not be confused with the absence of political disagreement.

Morocco has historically supported Palestinian national rights.

Public opinion concerning Israel and the Palestinian question has remained politically significant.

The country's normalization decision therefore developed within a complex environment combining historical ties, strategic interests and political sensitivities.

## 6\. Morocco and Israel Before 2020

Morocco and Israel maintained various forms of contact before the Abraham Accords.

These contacts included discreet political communication and other forms of engagement.

During the 1990s, following the Oslo peace process, the two countries established low-level diplomatic relations through liaison offices.

The opening of these offices represented an important development.

However, the relationship deteriorated during the Second Intifada.

In 2000, Morocco closed its liaison office in Israel, and the Israeli liaison office in Morocco also ceased operating.

Formal diplomatic relations remained limited for the following two decades.

Nevertheless, historical and personal connections between Moroccan and Israeli communities continued.

The existence of earlier diplomatic contacts meant that Morocco's 2020 decision was not the creation of an entirely unprecedented relationship.

Rather, it represented the restoration and expansion of official relations within a new international political framework.

## 7\. December 2020: Morocco Announces Normalization

On December 10, 2020, the United States announced that Morocco and Israel had agreed to normalize relations.

The announcement was associated with a major American policy decision concerning Western Sahara.

President Donald Trump's administration recognized Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara.

This was a significant diplomatic development.

Western Sahara is a disputed territory in northwestern Africa.

Morocco administers most of the territory and considers it part of the kingdom.

The Polisario Front seeks self-determination for the Sahrawi people and has advocated independence.

The United Nations continues to treat Western Sahara as a Non-Self-Governing Territory.

Its final status remains unresolved.

The American recognition of Moroccan sovereignty was therefore politically consequential.

It also became central to interpretations of Morocco's normalization decision.

For Morocco, the Western Sahara issue is a major national priority.

For critics, the connection raised questions about whether diplomatic recognition of Israel had been encouraged through a concession involving another unresolved territorial dispute.

The Moroccan government presented normalization as consistent with its national interests while maintaining support for the Palestinian cause.

The relationship between these two policy objectives became an important subject of debate.

## 8\. The Western Sahara Question

Western Sahara has been the subject of a prolonged territorial dispute since the end of Spanish colonial administration in the 1970s.

Morocco claims sovereignty over the territory.

The Polisario Front seeks self-determination for the Sahrawi people.

The conflict has involved military confrontation, displacement and decades of unsuccessful diplomatic efforts to achieve a final settlement.

The United Nations established the Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara, known as MINURSO, in 1991.

The mission was associated with a ceasefire and an intended referendum process.

However, the referendum did not take place.

Disagreements over eligibility, political arrangements and the territory's final status remained unresolved.

The United States' decision in December 2020 to recognize Moroccan sovereignty departed from its previous approach.

It strengthened Morocco's diplomatic position but did not, by itself, settle the territory's international legal status.

Other governments and international organizations maintained differing positions.

This distinction is essential.

American recognition was a national foreign policy decision.

It did not constitute a universally accepted international settlement.

The Western Sahara issue demonstrates how the Abraham Accords intersected with political disputes beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Normalization was connected not only to Middle Eastern diplomacy but also to territorial politics in North Africa.

## 9\. Diplomatic and Economic Relations Between Morocco and Israel

Following the December 2020 announcement, Morocco and Israel moved toward restoring official diplomatic contacts.

Liaison offices reopened.

Government delegations visited one another.

Direct travel connections and commercial cooperation developed.

The countries identified potential areas of cooperation including tourism, agriculture, water management, technology and investment.

Morocco's historical Jewish heritage also became an important part of cultural and tourism initiatives.

Israeli visitors with Moroccan family backgrounds gained additional opportunities to explore places connected to their ancestors.

However, cultural tourism should not be romanticized as proof that political disagreements have disappeared.

The relationship developed alongside continued debate about Palestinian rights and Israeli government policies.

Moroccan authorities also pursued cooperation in security and defense-related areas.

These developments reflected national strategic interests.

Yet the extent and consequences of particular arrangements require careful examination.

The normalization process expanded official relations but did not remove the political sensitivities surrounding Israel's relationship with the Palestinians.

## 10\. Morocco's Position on Palestine

Morocco's normalization decision did not mean that its government formally abandoned support for Palestinian statehood.

King Mohammed VI has held the chairmanship of the Al-Quds Committee, an institution associated with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation that addresses issues concerning Jerusalem.

Morocco has continued to emphasize the importance of a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

However, the government's decision to normalize relations generated criticism.

Some Moroccan political movements and civil society organizations opposed the agreement.

They argued that normalization risked weakening solidarity with Palestinians.

Others emphasized the potential benefits of diplomacy and the importance of Morocco's historical connections with Jewish communities.

These positions were not necessarily mutually exclusive in every individual case.

A person could support Jewish-Moroccan cultural heritage while opposing particular Israeli government policies.

Similarly, support for Palestinian rights did not automatically imply rejection of dialogue with Israelis.

The Moroccan experience demonstrates the importance of distinguishing between cultural relationships, diplomatic recognition and political positions concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

## 11\. Sudan: A Country in Political Transition

Sudan's normalization process developed under very different circumstances.

For three decades, Sudan was ruled by President Omar al-Bashir, who came to power in a military coup in 1989.

His government faced international criticism over human rights abuses, armed conflicts and political repression.

The conflict in Darfur resulted in widespread atrocities and displacement.

Al-Bashir was later indicted by the International Criminal Court on charges including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Sudan also experienced prolonged economic difficulties and international isolation.

In April 2019, following months of mass protests, the Sudanese military removed al-Bashir from power.

A political transition followed.

Civilian and military representatives established a transitional arrangement intended to guide the country toward a new political system.

However, the transition remained fragile.

Disagreements over the distribution of power, accountability and economic reform created significant tensions.

Sudan's normalization decision emerged within this unstable political environment.

## 12\. Sudan's Earlier Relationship With Israel

Sudan had historically maintained a hostile official position toward Israel.

The country participated in Arab diplomatic initiatives opposing Israel and supported Palestinian political causes.

Khartoum also hosted the Arab League summit of September 1967.

The summit became associated with the famous Three Noes: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel and no negotiations with Israel.

However, Sudan's policies changed over time.

Its regional relationships evolved.

The country's political leadership faced growing economic and diplomatic pressures.

By 2020, the transitional authorities were seeking ways to improve Sudan's international standing.

Relations with the United States became particularly important.

Sudan had been designated by Washington as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1993.

The designation contributed to restrictions affecting the country's international financial and diplomatic relationships.

Removing Sudan from the list became a major priority for the transitional government.

Normalization with Israel became connected to this broader diplomatic process.

## 13\. The October 2020 Normalization Announcement

On October 23, 2020, the United States announced that Sudan and Israel had agreed to take steps toward normalizing relations.

The announcement followed negotiations involving the Sudanese transitional authorities and the Trump administration.

The United States also moved forward with removing Sudan from its list of state sponsors of terrorism.

The processes were politically connected, although the legal requirements and procedures were separate.

For Sudan's transitional leadership, improving relations with Washington was considered important for economic recovery.

The country faced severe financial difficulties, debt burdens and challenges in accessing international assistance.

Normalization was therefore associated with expectations of broader diplomatic and economic benefits.

However, Sudan's domestic political environment was deeply divided.

Some officials supported engagement with Israel.

Others opposed normalization or questioned whether the transitional authorities had the mandate to make such a decision.

The announcement did not immediately establish a fully functioning bilateral diplomatic relationship comparable to those between Israel and the UAE.

Sudan's process remained incomplete.

## 14\. Sudan and the State Sponsors of Terrorism List

Sudan's removal from the United States' state sponsors of terrorism list was a major diplomatic development.

The designation had been in place since 1993.

Its removal was formally completed in December 2020.

The decision was important for Sudan's international financial relationships.

However, removal from the list did not automatically eliminate all economic difficulties.

Sudan continued to face substantial debt, institutional weaknesses and political instability.

The normalization announcement and the removal from the terrorism list were often discussed together.

Nevertheless, they should not be treated as one legally identical agreement.

The American designation was governed by United States law.

Diplomatic normalization with Israel was a separate political process.

The connection between them illustrates how international diplomacy can involve multiple negotiations and incentives.

It also raises questions about the pressures faced by economically vulnerable governments during major foreign policy decisions.

## 15\. Sudan Signs the Abraham Accords Declaration

On January 6, 2021, Sudan signed the Abraham Accords Declaration.

The signing took place during a visit by U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to Khartoum.

Sudan's transitional government was represented by Justice Minister Nasredeen Abdulbari.

The signing symbolized Sudan's participation in the diplomatic initiative.

However, it did not establish the same level of bilateral relations that Israel had developed with the UAE.

Further political and institutional steps were required.

Sudan's transitional authorities faced disagreements over normalization.

The country's political system remained unsettled.

The process therefore advanced more slowly and unevenly than those of the other participating countries.

This difference is central to understanding Sudan's place in the Abraham Accords.

Participation in a declaration should not be confused with the successful establishment of comprehensive diplomatic relations.

## 16\. The 2021 Military Coup

Sudan's political transition suffered a major setback in October 2021.

The military, led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, seized power and detained civilian political leaders.

The coup disrupted the transitional arrangement.

It triggered widespread protests and international condemnation.

The political crisis complicated Sudan's relationships with foreign governments.

It also affected the normalization process with Israel.

Diplomatic initiatives require functioning institutions and political authority capable of implementing agreements.

Sudan's unstable political environment made this increasingly difficult.

The coup demonstrated the vulnerability of diplomatic arrangements developed during periods of domestic transition.

Foreign policy commitments can become uncertain when political institutions collapse or competing authorities claim legitimacy.

Sudan's normalization process remained incomplete.

## 17\. The War in Sudan

In April 2023, armed conflict erupted between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces.

The fighting followed escalating tensions between the two military organizations.

The war devastated large parts of the country.

It caused mass displacement, severe humanitarian suffering and extensive damage to civilian infrastructure.

Reports documented attacks against civilians, sexual violence and other serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law.

The conflict also disrupted government institutions and diplomatic activity.

Under these circumstances, normalization with Israel became a secondary issue compared with the immediate struggle for political authority and the humanitarian emergency.

The war prevented the development of a stable diplomatic relationship comparable to those established by the UAE and Bahrain.

Sudan's experience illustrates a fundamental limitation of the Abraham Accords framework.

A diplomatic announcement cannot substitute for domestic political stability.

Without functioning institutions and sustained political authority, international commitments may remain largely unimplemented.

## 18\. Comparing the Three Countries

Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan entered normalization processes in 2020, but their experiences were significantly different.

Bahrain established formal diplomatic relations with Israel and developed official channels for cooperation.

Its decision was influenced by security relationships, regional strategy and potential economic opportunities.

Morocco restored and expanded diplomatic relations within the context of its historical connections with Jewish communities and its territorial dispute over Western Sahara.

The American recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara was a major element of the diplomatic environment surrounding the agreement.

Sudan announced normalization during a fragile political transition.

Its decision was closely associated with efforts to improve relations with the United States and overcome international economic isolation.

However, political instability, the 2021 military coup and the war beginning in 2023 prevented the development of comprehensive bilateral relations.

These differences demonstrate why the Abraham Accords should not be evaluated as one uniform diplomatic outcome.

Each country's relationship with Israel developed under different circumstances.

Each faced different political constraints.

And each produced different practical results.

## 19\. The Role of the United States

American diplomacy played an important role in all three cases.

The Trump administration sought to expand normalization between Israel and Arab governments.

However, the incentives and political circumstances differed.

In Bahrain, normalization was connected to an existing network of security partnerships.

In Morocco, the American decision concerning Western Sahara was a central diplomatic development.

In Sudan, normalization was associated with the country's efforts to improve relations with Washington and secure removal from the state sponsors of terrorism list.

These distinctions raise important questions about the nature of diplomatic agreements.

Were the decisions primarily driven by a desire for peace with Israel?

Were they influenced by strategic or economic benefits?

Or did governments pursue normalization because it could help them achieve other national objectives?

In practice, several motivations could operate simultaneously.

International diplomacy rarely depends on one consideration alone.

The Abraham Accords reflected a combination of bilateral interests, American mediation and changing regional calculations.

## 20\. The Difference Between Recognition and Reconciliation

The experiences of Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan also reveal an important distinction between diplomatic recognition and broader reconciliation.

Recognition is a formal act between governments.

It establishes or acknowledges official relations.

Reconciliation is a more complex social and political process.

It may involve changing public attitudes, addressing historical grievances and developing trust between communities.

The two processes do not necessarily occur at the same speed.

A government can establish diplomatic relations while substantial public opposition remains.

Commercial cooperation can expand while political disagreements continue.

A diplomatic declaration can be signed without the institutions needed to implement it.

The Abraham Accords created new opportunities for official engagement.

However, their ability to encourage deeper reconciliation depended on factors extending beyond the agreements themselves.

These included domestic politics, regional stability, public opinion and the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

## Conclusion — Different Roads Toward Normalization

Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan demonstrate that the Abraham Accords were not a single diplomatic formula applied uniformly across the Middle East and North Africa.

Each country approached normalization from a different historical and political position.

Bahrain viewed closer relations with Israel through the context of regional security, strategic partnerships and economic cooperation.

Morocco combined diplomatic normalization with longstanding cultural connections and important political developments concerning Western Sahara.

Sudan entered the process during a fragile transition, seeking international reintegration and economic opportunities.

Their outcomes were equally different.

Bahrain established functioning diplomatic relations.

Morocco restored and expanded official ties.

Sudan's normalization process remained incomplete as political instability and war overwhelmed the country's institutions.

The experiences of these countries reveal both the potential and the limitations of diplomatic agreements.

They show that normalization can create new relationships and opportunities.

They also demonstrate that political announcements do not guarantee lasting institutional cooperation.

**The Abraham Accords opened several different diplomatic doors, but each country faced its own challenges in deciding how far—and under what circumstances—to walk through them.**

The next chapter examines one of the most contested questions surrounding the agreements.

For Palestinian leaders, the Abraham Accords represented a major departure from the Arab Peace Initiative and decades of diplomatic expectations.

For supporters of normalization, the agreements offered an alternative approach to regional engagement.

The disagreement raises a fundamental question:

Can Arab-Israeli normalization contribute to lasting peace without first resolving the question of Palestinian self-determination?

Understanding that debate is essential to understanding the broader consequences of the Abraham Accords.

![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/25/d6/25d63f5d-099c-45e8-ad1b-346bc1c986ba/content/images/2026/10/No_to_the_annexation_004.jpg)

Demonstrators protest against proposed Israeli annexation of parts of the West Bank at Rabin Square in Tel Aviv, June 6, 2020.

# Chapter 6 — The Palestinian Perspective: A Diplomatic Breakthrough or a Betrayal?

## Introduction — A Peace Agreement Without the Palestinians?

On September 15, 2020, political leaders gathered at the White House to celebrate the signing of the Abraham Accords.

For Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and the United States, the ceremony represented a significant diplomatic achievement.

The agreements opened the door to new political relationships, economic cooperation and regional partnerships.

Yet one group was notably absent from the negotiations and the ceremony: the Palestinians.

For decades, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had been central to Arab diplomacy concerning Israel.

Many Arab governments had maintained that full normalization should follow meaningful progress toward Palestinian self-determination and an end to Israeli occupation.

The Abraham Accords challenged that longstanding approach.

Participating Arab governments chose to establish relations with Israel while the fundamental political questions surrounding Palestinian statehood remained unresolved.

Palestinian leaders responded with anger and disappointment.

They argued that normalization weakened an important source of diplomatic pressure on Israel.

Supporters of the agreements offered a different interpretation.

They suggested that closer relations between Israel and Arab governments could create new opportunities for dialogue and influence.

The disagreement raised a fundamental question.

Could diplomatic normalization between Israel and Arab states contribute to peace if the Palestinians themselves were not directly involved in the process?

Understanding the Palestinian perspective requires examining the history of Arab diplomatic commitments, the political divisions within Palestinian society and the realities of life under occupation and blockade.

It also requires recognizing that Palestinians do not represent one uniform political opinion.

Their experiences, priorities and political affiliations differ.

However, the question of national self-determination remains central to Palestinian political life.

## 1\. Why the Palestinian Question Became Central to Arab Diplomacy

The Palestinian question became a major issue in Arab politics following the events surrounding Israel's establishment in 1948.

During the 1947–1949 war, approximately 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled from their homes.

For Palestinians, this displacement became known as the Nakba, or catastrophe.

The consequences extended across generations.

Palestinian refugee communities developed in the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere.

Many families retained connections to towns and villages from which they had been displaced.

The question of refugee rights became a central element of Palestinian national identity.

The war also left Palestinians without an independent state.

Following the 1967 war, Israel occupied the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.

The occupation introduced further political, legal and humanitarian challenges.

Over time, the Palestinian national movement increasingly emphasized the right to self-determination and the establishment of an independent state.

Arab governments adopted different approaches to these demands.

Some supported armed struggle.

Others emphasized diplomatic negotiations.

Their policies were often influenced by national security interests and domestic political considerations.

Nevertheless, support for Palestinian rights became an important element of regional diplomacy.

The relationship between Israel and the Arab world could therefore not be separated easily from the unresolved Palestinian question.

## 2\. The Arab Peace Initiative of 2002

One of the most important diplomatic frameworks preceding the Abraham Accords was the Arab Peace Initiative.

The initiative was adopted by the Arab League at its Beirut summit in March 2002.

It originated from a proposal by Saudi Arabia's then-Crown Prince Abdullah.

The initiative offered Israel the possibility of normal relations with Arab states within a comprehensive peace settlement.

However, normalization was linked to specific political conditions.

These included Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in 1967, the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital and an agreed solution to the Palestinian refugee question consistent with United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194.

The initiative represented an important collective diplomatic position.

It suggested that Arab governments were prepared to establish peaceful relations with Israel if the central territorial and political issues were resolved.

For Palestinian leaders, this framework provided a source of regional diplomatic support.

It linked Israel's wider acceptance in the Arab world to progress on Palestinian national rights.

The Abraham Accords introduced a different sequence.

Rather than making normalization conditional on a comprehensive settlement, participating governments pursued diplomatic relations while the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remained unresolved.

This change became one of the principal reasons for Palestinian opposition.

## 3\. The Palestinian Authority's Reaction

The Palestinian Authority strongly criticized the announcement of normalization between Israel and the United Arab Emirates in August 2020.

President Mahmoud Abbas and other Palestinian officials argued that the agreement undermined the Arab Peace Initiative.

They viewed it as a departure from established Arab commitments concerning Palestinian statehood.

The Palestinian leadership was particularly concerned that Israel could gain diplomatic recognition without making substantial concessions on occupation, settlements or sovereignty.

The Palestinian Authority had long pursued international recognition and diplomatic negotiations as important elements of its political strategy.

Regional Arab support was considered essential to those efforts.

The UAE agreement therefore created a significant diplomatic challenge.

Palestinian officials also rejected the argument that normalization was justified by the suspension of Israeli annexation plans.

They maintained that preventing an immediate annexation declaration did not resolve the underlying occupation.

From their perspective, the suspension of one proposed measure could not substitute for a comprehensive political settlement.

The Palestinian Authority subsequently criticized Bahrain's decision to normalize relations.

Its response reflected a broader concern that other Arab governments might follow, further reducing the diplomatic leverage associated with collective Arab positions.

## 4\. Hamas and the Abraham Accords

Hamas also opposed the normalization agreements.

The organization, which has governed Gaza since 2007, has a different political history and strategy from the Palestinian Authority.

Hamas is an Islamist Palestinian political and armed movement.

It has carried out attacks against Israeli civilians, including the October 7, 2023, attacks, and is designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, European Union, United Kingdom and several other governments.

Hamas criticized the Abraham Accords as a form of normalization that benefited Israel while Palestinian national demands remained unresolved.

Its opposition reflected its broader rejection of the diplomatic approach pursued by the participating Arab governments.

However, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority should not be treated as interchangeable representatives of Palestinian political opinion.

The two organizations have experienced years of political conflict.

Their strategies, political structures and approaches to negotiations differ substantially.

The Palestinian Authority has pursued diplomatic recognition and negotiations within a framework aimed at Palestinian statehood.

Hamas has combined political activity, governance in Gaza and armed confrontation with Israel.

Both opposed the Abraham Accords, but their broader political objectives and methods were not identical.

Understanding these distinctions is necessary to avoid presenting Palestinian society as politically uniform.

## 5\. Palestinian Public Opinion

Palestinian public opinion concerning normalization has been influenced by historical experiences, political conditions and expectations about the future.

For many Palestinians, normalization raises questions about whether their national aspirations will remain central to regional diplomacy.

Some view diplomatic relations between Israel and Arab governments as a weakening of solidarity.

Others question whether maintaining diplomatic isolation has produced meaningful progress toward Palestinian independence.

Views can also differ between Palestinians living in the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, Israel and the diaspora.

These communities experience different legal and political conditions.

Palestinians in the West Bank live under a combination of Israeli military control and limited Palestinian Authority administration, with different arrangements across Areas A, B and C.

Palestinians in Gaza have experienced prolonged restrictions, repeated armed conflicts and severe humanitarian crises.

Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem face a different legal and administrative situation.

Palestinian citizens of Israel possess Israeli citizenship but experience distinct political and social debates concerning equality, identity and national belonging.

Palestinians living abroad may approach regional diplomacy through the experiences of displacement, migration or family history.

These differences shape political priorities.

It would therefore be misleading to describe one opinion as representing every Palestinian.

Nevertheless, concerns about self-determination, political rights and the future of the occupied territories remain central across much of Palestinian political discourse.

## 6\. The Question of Israeli Occupation

The Israeli occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is central to Palestinian criticism of normalization.

Israel captured these territories during the 1967 war.

International legal institutions and the United Nations have repeatedly addressed the legal consequences of the occupation.

The International Court of Justice, in its July 2024 advisory opinion, concluded that Israel's continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful and that Israel is under an obligation to bring it to an end as rapidly as possible.

The opinion is advisory rather than a binding judgment between states, but it carries substantial legal authority.

Israel rejected the court's conclusions and maintains that a negotiated political settlement must account for its security concerns and historical claims.

Israeli settlements in the West Bank remain a major point of international controversy.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, adopted in 2016, states that settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation under international law.

Israeli governments have disputed aspects of the international legal interpretation and have pursued different settlement policies over time.

For Palestinians, settlement expansion affects land access, movement, territorial continuity and the prospects for a future state.

These realities are central to the debate about normalization.

Critics argue that diplomatic recognition of Israel without progress on occupation reduces pressure for political change.

Supporters of normalization argue that engagement may provide additional channels through which Arab governments can raise concerns.

The effectiveness of either approach must be assessed through actual political outcomes.

## 7\. The Annexation Debate of 2020

In 2020, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu discussed applying Israeli sovereignty to parts of the occupied West Bank.

The proposals were widely described internationally as annexation plans.

They generated significant concern among Palestinian leaders and foreign governments.

The United Arab Emirates publicly opposed the proposals.

Its ambassador to the United States, Yousef Al Otaiba, warned that annexation would undermine prospects for closer relations.

When normalization was announced in August 2020, Israel agreed to suspend the declaration of sovereignty over areas outlined in the Trump administration's peace plan.

The UAE presented the suspension as an important diplomatic achievement.

However, Palestinian leaders questioned its significance.

Suspension did not mean that Israel had permanently abandoned all annexation proposals.

Nor did it resolve the status of settlements or the occupation.

From the Palestinian perspective, the central issue was not simply whether a particular annexation declaration would proceed.

It was whether Palestinians would gain meaningful control over their territory and political future.

This distinction explains why the UAE's argument did not persuade the Palestinian leadership.

The agreement addressed an immediate diplomatic issue without resolving the broader territorial conflict.

## 8\. Could Normalization Reduce Diplomatic Pressure?

One of the strongest Palestinian arguments against the Abraham Accords concerned diplomatic leverage.

For decades, many Arab governments had linked formal relations with Israel to progress toward a Palestinian settlement.

This position created a potential incentive.

Israel could gain broader regional recognition through a negotiated agreement.

The Abraham Accords altered that calculation.

Israel established diplomatic relations with additional Arab governments without first reaching a comprehensive agreement with Palestinian representatives.

Critics argued that this reduced the diplomatic benefits Israel might otherwise gain from making concessions.

In their view, normalization removed part of the incentive for negotiations.

However, the relationship between diplomatic recognition and political leverage is complicated.

Formal relations may also create channels for communication and influence.

A government with an embassy and regular ministerial contact may have opportunities to raise concerns directly.

Whether such opportunities translate into meaningful policy changes depends on political will, the importance of the relationship and the broader international environment.

The key question is therefore not simply whether normalization creates or removes leverage.

It is how governments use the diplomatic relationships they establish.

## 9\. The Argument for Engagement

Supporters of normalization argue that maintaining diplomatic isolation has not produced a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian settlement.

Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979.

Jordan followed in 1994.

Yet the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remained unresolved.

Supporters of the Abraham Accords contend that additional diplomatic relationships could create opportunities for regional cooperation and political dialogue.

They argue that Arab governments may gain influence through direct engagement.

Economic cooperation could also create shared interests in regional stability.

However, these arguments require evidence.

The existence of diplomatic relations does not guarantee that governments will use their influence to advance Palestinian rights.

Commercial cooperation does not automatically change policies concerning occupation or settlements.

The effectiveness of engagement must therefore be evaluated through specific diplomatic actions and their consequences.

The debate reflects two different theories of political influence.

One emphasizes withholding recognition until political conditions are met.

The other emphasizes engagement as a possible means of encouraging change.

Neither approach should be treated as automatically successful.

## 10\. The Role of Arab Governments

Arab governments have historically adopted different approaches toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Egypt and Jordan established peace treaties with Israel while continuing to support a negotiated Palestinian settlement.

Other governments maintained restrictions on official relations.

Some participated in mediation efforts.

Others emphasized financial assistance, diplomatic recognition or support for international resolutions.

The Abraham Accords expanded the range of diplomatic approaches.

The UAE, Bahrain and Morocco pursued normalization while maintaining official statements supporting Palestinian rights.

Saudi Arabia did not join the accords in 2020 and continued to emphasize the importance of Palestinian statehood.

Qatar maintained a different role, including mediation and engagement with parties involved in Gaza.

These differences demonstrate that Arab policy toward Israel cannot be understood as one unified position.

Governments balance domestic opinion, national security, economic interests and regional relationships.

Their decisions may also change in response to major events.

For Palestinians, this diversity creates both opportunities and challenges.

Different Arab governments may provide different forms of diplomatic support.

However, the absence of a single regional strategy can complicate efforts to coordinate political pressure.

## 11\. Palestinian Civil Society and Human Rights Organizations

Palestinian civil society organizations have played an important role in documenting the effects of occupation, displacement and restrictions on movement.

Human rights organizations have examined issues including settlement expansion, detention, access to land, freedom of movement and the treatment of civilians.

Some Palestinian organizations have criticized normalization because they believe it risks legitimizing existing inequalities.

Others emphasize the importance of international legal accountability and political rights.

Civil society perspectives are important because government positions do not capture the full range of Palestinian experiences.

Journalists, lawyers, educators, medical professionals and community organizations may approach the consequences of normalization through different concerns.

For example, a human rights organization may focus on whether diplomatic agreements influence settlement policy.

A business organization may examine whether regional economic cooperation creates opportunities for Palestinians.

A humanitarian organization may assess whether new diplomatic channels improve access to medical assistance.

These perspectives provide a broader understanding of the agreements' potential consequences.

However, claims made by advocacy organizations should be evaluated through evidence and clearly attributed.

Independent journalism requires distinguishing documented facts from political arguments and interpretations.

## 12\. Economic Cooperation and Palestinian Exclusion

The Abraham Accords created opportunities for trade and investment between Israel and participating Arab countries.

However, the Palestinian territories were not direct parties to the bilateral normalization agreements.

This raised questions about whether Palestinians would benefit from the resulting economic cooperation.

The Palestinian economy faces significant structural constraints.

Restrictions on movement and access, political instability, dependence on external trade arrangements and limitations affecting land and resources influence economic development.

The West Bank and Gaza also have different economic conditions.

For some Palestinians, regional economic integration could potentially create opportunities.

However, such benefits would depend on access to markets, freedom of movement, investment conditions and political arrangements.

Economic cooperation between Israel and Arab states does not automatically improve Palestinian economic circumstances.

Indeed, critics argue that regional investment could expand while the underlying restrictions affecting Palestinians remain unchanged.

Supporters of engagement suggest that new partnerships might create opportunities for broader economic initiatives.

The central issue is whether Palestinians are included in the planning and benefits of regional cooperation.

Without meaningful participation, economic normalization risks developing separately from the communities most directly affected by the unresolved conflict.

## 13\. The Difference Between Economic Development and Political Rights

Economic development is often presented as a pathway toward peace.

Improved employment, investment and infrastructure can contribute to social stability.

However, economic opportunity and political self-determination are not interchangeable.

For Palestinians, the question of statehood involves sovereignty, borders, security, political representation and control over national institutions.

Economic projects may improve living conditions.

They cannot, by themselves, resolve disputes over these fundamental political questions.

This distinction became important in discussions surrounding the Trump administration's 2020 peace proposal.

The proposal included an economic development component.

Palestinian leaders rejected the wider political framework, arguing that it failed to meet their national aspirations.

The debate demonstrated that economic incentives cannot necessarily substitute for political agreement.

The same principle applies to the Abraham Accords.

Regional trade and investment may produce measurable benefits.

But those benefits should not be confused with a comprehensive settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

## 14\. Jerusalem and Its Political Significance

Jerusalem remains one of the most sensitive issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The city holds profound religious significance for Jews, Muslims and Christians.

It is also central to competing national claims.

Israel considers Jerusalem its capital.

Palestinians seek East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state.

Israel captured East Jerusalem in 1967 and subsequently extended its law and administration there.

The international community has generally not recognized Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem.

The city's political and religious significance makes it particularly important in discussions about normalization.

Arab governments must consider the implications of their relationships with Israel for Jerusalem's holy sites and Palestinian political claims.

Jordan has a recognized special role concerning Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem under its peace treaty with Israel.

Morocco's king chairs the Al-Quds Committee of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.

These responsibilities influence regional diplomatic discussions.

The Abraham Accords did not resolve Jerusalem's final political status.

For Palestinians, this omission was another reason to question whether normalization represented meaningful progress toward a comprehensive peace settlement.

## 15\. Refugees and the Right of Return

The Palestinian refugee question remains another major unresolved issue.

The displacement of Palestinians during the 1947–1949 war created refugee communities across the region.

Further displacement occurred during and after the 1967 war.

Palestinian refugees and their descendants live in the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and other countries.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, known as UNRWA, provides services to eligible Palestine refugees within its areas of operation.

The question of return, compensation and a final settlement remains politically contested.

Palestinians frequently invoke United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 in discussions concerning refugee rights.

Israeli governments have generally opposed an unrestricted return of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to Israel, citing concerns about national identity and demographic consequences.

Different peace proposals have considered combinations of return, resettlement and compensation.

No comprehensive agreement has been reached.

The Abraham Accords did not settle the refugee question.

For many Palestinians, this reinforced the perception that the agreements addressed relations between governments without resolving central elements of the conflict.

## 16\. October 7, 2023, and the War in Gaza

The Hamas-led attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023, and the war in Gaza that followed profoundly affected regional diplomacy.

The attacks killed approximately 1,200 people in Israel, and 251 people were taken hostage.

The deliberate targeting of civilians and hostage-taking constitute serious violations of international humanitarian law.

Israel launched a large-scale military campaign in Gaza.

The campaign caused extensive Palestinian casualties, destruction and displacement.

The humanitarian situation became catastrophic.

Hospitals, schools, homes and essential infrastructure were severely affected.

The war intensified political anger across the Arab world.

It also placed governments that had normalized relations with Israel under renewed pressure.

For Palestinian critics of the Abraham Accords, the conflict reinforced concerns that normalization had not prevented large-scale violence or improved the prospects for Palestinian self-determination.

Supporters of maintaining diplomatic relations argued that direct channels could still be useful for humanitarian diplomacy and communication.

The war therefore became a major test of the competing arguments surrounding normalization.

It demonstrated that diplomatic agreements between states do not automatically prevent armed conflict involving other actors.

It also highlighted the continuing centrality of the Palestinian question to regional stability.

## 17\. International Law and Palestinian Self-Determination

The Palestinian right to self-determination has been recognized in numerous United Nations resolutions and international legal instruments.

The International Court of Justice addressed the legal consequences of Israel's policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territory in its July 2024 advisory opinion.

The court concluded that Israel's continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful and identified obligations concerning ending that presence, settlement activity and the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.

The opinion also addressed obligations of other states.

Israel rejected the court's conclusions.

The legal framework remains an important element of international debate.

Diplomatic normalization does not remove states' obligations under international law.

Nor does recognition of Israel eliminate the legal questions concerning occupation and Palestinian rights.

This distinction is essential.

The Abraham Accords created new bilateral diplomatic relationships.

They did not replace international humanitarian law, human rights law or the legal principles governing self-determination.

Any assessment of the agreements must therefore consider both diplomatic developments and the continuing legal obligations of the parties involved.

## 18\. Can Normalization Contribute to a Two-State Solution?

The two-state solution remains an important framework in international diplomacy.

It envisages Israel and an independent Palestinian state existing alongside one another.

However, major obstacles remain.

These include disputes over borders, settlements, Jerusalem, security, refugees and political representation.

The Abraham Accords did not establish a two-state solution.

Supporters argue that closer Arab-Israeli relations could create new opportunities to encourage negotiations.

Arab governments with formal diplomatic relationships may be able to communicate directly with Israeli leaders.

They may also be able to connect regional cooperation with political conditions.

Critics argue that normalization without such conditions weakens incentives for meaningful negotiations.

The question therefore depends on the use of diplomatic influence.

A government may establish relations with Israel and actively advocate Palestinian statehood.

It may also prioritize bilateral economic or security cooperation while making limited progress on Palestinian issues.

The existence of normalization alone does not determine the outcome.

The practical policies of the participating governments are what matter.

## 19\. Peace Between Governments and Peace Between Peoples

The Abraham Accords raise a broader question about the meaning of peace.

Diplomatic agreements are signed by governments.

They can establish embassies, facilitate trade and create official communication channels.

These are important achievements.

However, peace also involves the experiences of individuals and communities.

For Israelis, peace may involve security, recognition and freedom from attacks.

For Palestinians, peace may involve self-determination, freedom from occupation, security, equality and the ability to live without displacement or violence.

These aspirations are not necessarily incompatible.

However, translating them into political arrangements requires difficult negotiations and sustained commitments.

The Abraham Accords addressed relations between Israel and participating Arab governments.

They did not directly negotiate a settlement between Israelis and Palestinians.

This distinction explains why the agreements could be celebrated as diplomatic achievements while also being criticized as insufficient for achieving comprehensive peace.

## 20\. A Question of Political Representation

One of the most important criticisms of the Abraham Accords concerns political representation.

Palestinians were not negotiating parties to the normalization agreements.

Yet the agreements affected the regional diplomatic environment surrounding their national aspirations.

This raises a fundamental question about international diplomacy.

Can agreements intended to improve regional peace be considered comprehensive if communities directly affected by unresolved conflicts are not represented?

Supporters may argue that bilateral agreements have their own legitimate objectives and do not need to resolve every regional dispute.

Critics may respond that describing normalization as regional peace risks overlooking the continuing absence of a political settlement for Palestinians.

Both arguments reflect different understandings of the agreements' purpose.

The Abraham Accords were successful in establishing or advancing certain diplomatic relationships.

They were not designed as a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty.

Evaluating them fairly requires recognizing both facts.

## Conclusion — A Diplomatic Breakthrough, but for Whom?

The Abraham Accords changed the diplomatic landscape of the Middle East.

They established new relationships between Israel and participating Arab governments.

They created opportunities for economic cooperation, political dialogue and regional partnerships.

However, for many Palestinians, the agreements represented a troubling departure from decades of Arab diplomatic commitments.

The Arab Peace Initiative had linked comprehensive normalization with progress toward Palestinian statehood and an end to occupation.

The Abraham Accords allowed normalization to proceed without those conditions being fulfilled.

Palestinian leaders argued that this weakened diplomatic pressure on Israel.

Supporters of normalization suggested that engagement could create new opportunities for influence and cooperation.

The consequences of these competing approaches remain subjects of political debate.

What is clear is that the Abraham Accords did not resolve the central questions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

They did not establish Palestinian sovereignty.

They did not determine borders or the status of Jerusalem.

They did not resolve the refugee question.

And they did not end the occupation.

The agreements demonstrated that diplomatic relations between governments can change even while major political conflicts remain unresolved.

But they also revealed the limitations of defining peace primarily through relations between states.

**For lasting regional peace, diplomatic recognition may be an important step—but it cannot replace the need to address the security, political rights and human dignity of the people whose lives remain shaped by conflict.**

The next chapter examines the role of the United States in the Abraham Accords.

American diplomacy helped bring the agreements into existence, but the process also involved strategic incentives, arms sales, regional security interests and controversial foreign policy decisions.

Understanding those factors is essential to evaluating whether the Abraham Accords represented a new vision for Middle Eastern peace or a reorganization of regional political relationships.

# Chapter 7 — The United States and the Politics Behind the Agreements

## Introduction — The Diplomacy Behind the Historic Handshakes

When the Abraham Accords were signed at the White House on September 15, 2020, the ceremony was presented as a historic breakthrough in Middle Eastern diplomacy.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stood alongside representatives of the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, while United States President Donald Trump hosted the event.

The images suggested a new chapter in relations between Israel and the Arab world.

However, the agreements were not simply the result of countries deciding to put aside longstanding disagreements.

They emerged from a complex diplomatic process involving national security interests, economic ambitions, political calculations and American foreign policy priorities.

The United States played a central role in bringing the participating governments together.

Washington had maintained close relationships with Israel and several Gulf monarchies for decades.

These relationships provided diplomatic channels through which negotiations could develop.

The Trump administration sought to use those connections to reshape regional politics.

Its approach emphasized closer cooperation between Israel and selected Arab governments, opposition to Iran's regional activities and the possibility of normalization without first achieving a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.

The agreements also intersected with other American foreign policy decisions.

These included proposed arms sales to the United Arab Emirates, recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara and Sudan's removal from the United States' list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Such developments raised important questions.

Were the Abraham Accords primarily agreements designed to advance peace?

Were they instruments of regional security policy?

Did participating governments receive political or strategic incentives in exchange for normalization?

And how did American domestic politics influence the timing and presentation of the agreements?

Understanding the United States' role requires examining both the diplomatic achievements and the political interests behind them.

## 1\. The United States and the Middle East Before 2020

American involvement in the Middle East developed over many decades.

Following the Second World War, the United States became increasingly involved in regional security, energy politics and international diplomacy.

Its relationships with Middle Eastern governments were shaped by several priorities.

These included access to energy resources, maritime security, competition with the Soviet Union during the Cold War and the protection of regional allies.

Israel became an important American partner.

Although relations between the two countries evolved over time, American military, diplomatic and economic support expanded substantially in the decades following Israel's establishment.

The United States also developed close relationships with Arab governments, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and several Gulf states.

These relationships sometimes created difficult diplomatic balancing acts.

Washington supported Israel while also maintaining security partnerships with governments that opposed aspects of Israeli policy.

The United States played an important role in negotiations leading to the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty of 1979.

President Jimmy Carter hosted the Camp David negotiations in 1978.

The United States also supported diplomatic initiatives associated with the Madrid Peace Conference of 1991 and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process during the 1990s.

American diplomacy therefore had a long history of attempting to influence Arab-Israeli relations.

However, the Abraham Accords represented a different approach from many earlier initiatives.

Rather than making an Israeli-Palestinian settlement the central starting point, the Trump administration pursued normalization between Israel and individual Arab governments.

## 2\. The Trump Administration's Regional Strategy

Donald Trump entered the White House in January 2017.

His administration adopted a Middle East policy emphasizing support for Israel, close relationships with Gulf partners and pressure on Iran.

Several decisions demonstrated this approach.

In December 2017, Trump announced American recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

The United States moved its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in May 2018.

The decision was welcomed by Israel's government but strongly criticized by Palestinian leaders and several other governments.

In May 2018, the administration withdrew the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the international agreement concerning Iran's nuclear programme.

Washington subsequently reimposed sanctions on Iran.

The administration also expanded cooperation with Gulf governments.

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates became important partners in regional diplomacy and security discussions.

These policies reflected a broader effort to strengthen relationships among governments that shared certain American strategic priorities.

However, the interests of those governments were not identical.

Israel's security concerns differed from those of the Gulf states.

The UAE maintained important economic relationships with Iran despite disagreements over regional security.

Saudi Arabia had its own political and religious considerations concerning normalization with Israel.

The Trump administration's challenge was to identify areas where these different interests could overlap.

The Abraham Accords emerged from that process.

## 3\. A Different Approach to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

For decades, American administrations had generally treated Israeli-Palestinian negotiations as a central element of broader Arab-Israeli peace efforts.

Although individual policies varied, the idea of a negotiated settlement remained an important diplomatic objective.

The Trump administration adopted a different strategy.

It pursued bilateral normalization agreements between Israel and Arab governments even when the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remained unresolved.

This approach challenged the diplomatic sequence associated with the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002.

Under that initiative, comprehensive Arab normalization was linked to Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories, Palestinian statehood and a negotiated resolution of outstanding issues.

The Abraham Accords demonstrated that some Arab governments were willing to establish relations with Israel without waiting for those conditions to be fulfilled.

Supporters described this as a pragmatic diplomatic breakthrough.

They argued that regional cooperation should not be indefinitely delayed by the failure of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

Critics argued that the approach reduced incentives for Israel to address Palestinian national demands.

The disagreement reflected two competing theories of diplomacy.

One emphasized resolving the central conflict before expanding regional recognition.

The other emphasized expanding diplomatic relationships in the hope that broader cooperation could eventually contribute to peace.

The Abraham Accords became an important test of the second approach.

## 4\. The Role of Jared Kushner and the American Negotiating Team

Several American officials played important roles in developing the agreements.

Jared Kushner, Trump's senior adviser and son-in-law, was a prominent figure in the administration's Middle East diplomatic efforts.

He worked on regional initiatives and negotiations involving Israel and Arab governments.

Other officials involved in the process included Avi Berkowitz, who served as a senior adviser and special representative for international negotiations, and U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman.

The American negotiating team developed relationships with political leaders and officials across the region.

Its work included discussions concerning normalization, regional security and economic cooperation.

However, the agreements should not be attributed exclusively to American negotiators.

Israeli and Arab officials made their own political calculations.

The UAE had economic and strategic reasons to consider normalization.

Bahrain operated within a distinct regional security environment.

Morocco pursued diplomatic objectives connected to Western Sahara.

Sudan sought international reintegration during a fragile political transition.

American diplomacy helped bring these interests together.

It did not make the interests identical.

## 5\. The 2020 Peace to Prosperity Proposal

In January 2020, the Trump administration introduced a plan titled *Peace to Prosperity: A Vision to Improve the Lives of the Palestinian and Israeli People*.

The proposal outlined a framework for addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It included provisions concerning borders, security, economic development and a possible future Palestinian state subject to extensive conditions.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed the proposal.

Palestinian leaders rejected it.

They argued that the plan failed to provide an acceptable basis for Palestinian sovereignty and self-determination.

The proposal was particularly controversial because of its approach to Israeli settlements, Jerusalem and the territorial arrangements it envisaged.

It also reflected the administration's broader effort to change established diplomatic assumptions.

The failure to obtain Palestinian support did not end American diplomatic activity.

Instead, negotiations increasingly focused on normalization between Israel and individual Arab governments.

This approach allowed the administration to pursue agreements even without progress toward a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian settlement.

However, it also meant that the Palestinian leadership was not a negotiating party to the Abraham Accords.

That absence became one of the agreements' most significant political controversies.

## 6\. The UAE Agreement and the Annexation Debate

The agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates developed during a period of intense debate over Israeli plans concerning the occupied West Bank.

In 2020, Prime Minister Netanyahu discussed extending Israeli sovereignty to parts of the territory.

The proposals were widely described internationally as annexation plans.

The UAE publicly opposed such a move.

In June 2020, Emirati Ambassador Yousef Al Otaiba published an article in the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth warning that annexation would undermine opportunities for closer relations.

The intervention was unusual because it addressed an Israeli audience directly.

It also linked potential normalization with Israeli decisions concerning the West Bank.

On August 13, 2020, the United States, Israel and the UAE announced an agreement to normalize relations.

The announcement stated that Israel would suspend declaring sovereignty over areas outlined in the American peace plan.

The UAE presented this suspension as an important diplomatic achievement.

However, the announcement did not establish a permanent prohibition on annexation.

Netanyahu indicated that annexation remained part of his political agenda, although implementation was suspended.

The different interpretations created controversy.

For the UAE, normalization could be presented as a diplomatic initiative that prevented an immediate unilateral step.

For Palestinian critics, the suspension did not resolve the underlying occupation.

The United States played an important role in facilitating this arrangement.

It demonstrated how a specific political issue could become part of a broader diplomatic negotiation.

## 7\. Bahrain and American Security Partnerships

Bahrain's participation reflected a different diplomatic environment.

The kingdom has long maintained close security relations with the United States.

It hosts the headquarters of the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet.

This relationship is important to Bahrain's national security and international position.

Bahrain also maintains close ties with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.

Its foreign policy decisions are influenced by these relationships.

The United States announced Bahrain's normalization agreement with Israel on September 11, 2020.

Bahrain participated in the White House signing ceremony four days later.

The agreement created a framework for diplomatic relations and cooperation.

However, Bahrain's normalization decision should not be described simply as an American instruction.

The Bahraini government had its own strategic interests.

These included regional security, international partnerships and potential economic opportunities.

At the same time, the country's domestic political environment complicated the decision.

Some Bahraini citizens and political groups opposed normalization, particularly because of concerns about Palestinian rights.

The agreement therefore reflected a government-level diplomatic decision rather than uniform public approval.

## 8\. The F-35 Debate and the United Arab Emirates

One of the most controversial issues associated with the Abraham Accords concerned American arms sales to the United Arab Emirates.

The UAE had expressed interest in acquiring advanced American military equipment, including F-35 fighter aircraft.

The F-35 is a sophisticated combat aircraft with advanced stealth and sensor capabilities.

Its sale to foreign governments involves significant strategic and technological considerations.

In November 2020, the Trump administration formally notified Congress of a proposed arms package for the UAE.

The package included up to 50 F-35 aircraft, MQ-9B unmanned aircraft and associated equipment and weapons.

The proposed sale generated debate in Washington and Israel.

American law and policy place particular importance on preserving Israel's qualitative military edge in the Middle East.

The prospect of providing advanced aircraft to a Gulf state therefore raised questions about regional military balances.

The proposed sale was widely discussed in connection with normalization.

However, it was not a provision of the UAE-Israel peace treaty.

The arms transaction was subject to separate American legal and administrative processes.

Subsequent negotiations encountered difficulties involving security conditions, technology protection and other concerns.

The UAE later suspended discussions concerning the purchase under the terms then being negotiated.

This episode illustrates an important distinction.

Diplomatic agreements may be accompanied by wider political and strategic incentives.

However, those incentives are not necessarily legally part of the signed agreements.

## 9\. Israel's Qualitative Military Edge

The concept of Israel's qualitative military edge has long influenced American defense policy.

It refers to Israel's ability to counter and defeat credible military threats while sustaining comparatively limited damage and casualties.

American legislation requires consideration of this principle when evaluating certain arms sales to Middle Eastern countries.

The proposed F-35 sale to the UAE therefore created a diplomatic challenge.

Washington sought to strengthen its relationship with the Emirates.

At the same time, it had to consider commitments concerning Israel's security.

Israeli officials initially expressed concerns about the proposed sale.

The issue became part of wider discussions involving the American and Israeli governments.

However, the debate should not be simplified into a claim that Israel formally exchanged diplomatic normalization for a specific weapons transaction.

The publicly available agreements do not establish such a contractual exchange.

The relationship between normalization and arms sales was political and strategic.

Understanding that distinction is essential to evaluating the negotiations accurately.

## 10\. Morocco and Western Sahara

Morocco's normalization agreement involved another major American foreign policy decision.

On December 10, 2020, the Trump administration announced that Morocco and Israel had agreed to normalize relations.

At the same time, the United States recognized Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara.

Western Sahara is a disputed territory in northwestern Africa.

Morocco administers most of the territory and claims sovereignty over it.

The Polisario Front seeks self-determination for the Sahrawi people and has advocated independence.

The United Nations continues to regard Western Sahara as a Non-Self-Governing Territory.

Its final political status remains unresolved.

The American recognition was therefore a significant diplomatic concession to Morocco.

For the Moroccan government, Western Sahara is a central national priority.

The announcement strengthened Morocco's international diplomatic position.

However, it did not create a universally accepted settlement of the territorial dispute.

Other governments and international organizations maintained differing positions.

The connection between normalization and Western Sahara raised questions about the use of territorial recognition as a diplomatic incentive.

It also demonstrated that the Abraham Accords were linked to political disputes extending beyond the Middle East.

## 11\. The International Legal Questions Surrounding Western Sahara

The Western Sahara dispute has a long legal and diplomatic history.

In 1975, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion concerning historical ties between Western Sahara and neighboring states.

The court recognized certain historical legal ties but did not find territorial sovereignty ties that would override the principle of self-determination.

The United Nations subsequently pursued efforts to facilitate a political settlement.

The United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara, known as MINURSO, was established in 1991.

However, the planned referendum did not take place.

Disagreements over the territory's political future continued.

The United States' recognition of Moroccan sovereignty in 2020 represented a change in American policy.

It did not alter the fact that the territory's status remained internationally contested.

This is important when examining the diplomatic context of the Abraham Accords.

A government may recognize another state's territorial claim as part of its foreign policy.

Such recognition does not necessarily resolve the underlying international legal dispute.

The Morocco agreement therefore illustrates how normalization can intersect with broader questions concerning territorial rights and self-determination.

## 12\. Sudan and Removal From the Terrorism List

Sudan's normalization process was closely connected to its efforts to improve relations with the United States.

For decades, Sudan had experienced international isolation and economic difficulties.

The United States designated Sudan as a state sponsor of terrorism in 1993.

The designation affected the country's international financial and diplomatic relationships.

Following the removal of President Omar al-Bashir in 2019, Sudan entered a fragile political transition.

The transitional authorities sought international support and economic reintegration.

Removal from the American terrorism list became a major priority.

On October 23, 2020, the United States announced that Sudan and Israel had agreed to take steps toward normalization.

The announcement occurred alongside American actions concerning Sudan's terrorism designation.

Sudan's removal from the list became effective in December 2020.

The two processes were politically connected but legally distinct.

Normalization with Israel was a diplomatic initiative.

Removal from the terrorism list followed procedures under American law.

The distinction matters because the relationship between the two developments is sometimes presented too simply.

Sudan's leaders were pursuing broader international reintegration.

Normalization was one element of a complicated political and economic negotiation.

## 13\. Sudan's Domestic Political Limitations

Unlike the UAE and Bahrain, Sudan was undergoing a fragile political transition.

The transitional government included civilian and military representatives.

Disagreements over political authority and the country's future remained unresolved.

Normalization with Israel was controversial.

Some Sudanese political figures supported improved international relations.

Others opposed normalization or questioned whether the transitional authorities had the mandate to make such a decision.

Sudan signed the Abraham Accords Declaration in January 2021.

However, the country did not establish a fully functioning diplomatic relationship comparable to those developed by the UAE and Bahrain.

The military coup of October 2021 disrupted the political transition.

The war that began in April 2023 further devastated Sudan's institutions.

These developments prevented sustained progress toward comprehensive normalization.

Sudan's experience demonstrates the limitations of diplomacy when domestic political institutions are unstable.

American mediation could help produce an announcement.

It could not guarantee that Sudan would possess the political stability necessary to implement the relationship.

## 14\. American Domestic Politics and the 2020 Election

The Abraham Accords were announced during a presidential election year in the United States.

Donald Trump was seeking reelection in November 2020.

The administration presented the agreements as evidence of successful foreign policy leadership.

The White House signing ceremony received extensive media coverage.

Supporters described the accords as a major diplomatic achievement.

Critics questioned the administration's broader Middle East policies, particularly its approach to Palestinian rights and Iran.

The timing of the agreements gave them domestic political significance.

However, the existence of an election campaign does not establish that the agreements were created solely for electoral purposes.

Negotiations involved governments with substantial national interests.

The UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan each approached normalization for different reasons.

The American election influenced the political presentation of the agreements.

It should not be treated as a complete explanation for the diplomatic decisions.

The accords were both international agreements and an important part of the administration's foreign policy record.

## 15\. The Biden Administration and Diplomatic Continuity

Joe Biden became president in January 2021.

His administration maintained support for the Abraham Accords and encouraged further regional normalization.

This demonstrated that the agreements were not simply abandoned following the change of administration.

However, Biden's approach to regional diplomacy differed from Trump's in several respects.

The administration initially expressed an interest in restoring a diplomatic framework concerning Iran's nuclear programme.

It also emphasized cooperation with traditional American allies and continued engagement on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

At the same time, Washington sought to expand Arab-Israeli normalization.

Saudi Arabia became a particularly important focus of diplomatic discussions.

A potential agreement involving Saudi Arabia would have carried major regional significance.

However, negotiations were complicated by questions involving American security guarantees, civilian nuclear cooperation, Israeli policy toward Palestinians and broader regional conditions.

The Hamas-led attacks of October 7, 2023, and the subsequent war in Gaza created additional obstacles.

The Biden administration's continued support for normalization nevertheless demonstrated that the Abraham Accords had become part of a broader American diplomatic strategy extending beyond the Trump presidency.

## 16\. Saudi Arabia and the Limits of American Influence

Saudi Arabia did not join the Abraham Accords in 2020.

Its position reflected a combination of national interests, regional influence and political considerations.

The kingdom is one of the most influential states in the Arab and Islamic worlds.

Its leadership has historically emphasized the importance of Palestinian statehood.

Saudi Arabia also maintains a major security relationship with the United States.

For Washington, Saudi-Israeli normalization became an important diplomatic objective.

Such an agreement could potentially reshape regional security and economic relationships.

However, the negotiations involved complex questions.

Saudi Arabia sought assurances concerning security and other strategic priorities.

Israel had its own political and security considerations.

The Palestinian question remained a major obstacle.

American diplomacy could facilitate discussions.

It could not eliminate the different political interests of the participating governments.

The Saudi case therefore illustrates the limits of diplomatic influence.

Even a powerful international mediator cannot guarantee an agreement when fundamental political conditions remain unresolved.

## 17\. Iran and the Regional Security Dimension

Iran was an important factor in the regional environment surrounding the Abraham Accords.

Israel viewed Iran's nuclear programme, missile capabilities and relationships with armed organizations as major security concerns.

Several Gulf governments also expressed concern about aspects of Iranian regional activity.

These overlapping concerns created opportunities for strategic dialogue.

However, the participating Arab governments did not all adopt identical policies toward Iran.

The UAE maintained important economic relationships with Tehran.

Bahrain's security concerns were shaped by its own domestic and regional circumstances.

Morocco's normalization decision was strongly connected to Western Sahara.

Sudan's decision was influenced by its political transition and international financial relationships.

It would therefore be inaccurate to describe every Abraham Accords agreement as simply an anti-Iran alliance.

The accords reflected a broader diplomatic reorganization involving several distinct national interests.

Nevertheless, concerns about regional security helped make closer relations between Israel and certain Arab governments more politically attractive.

## 18\. Arms Sales, Diplomacy and Political Incentives

The Abraham Accords illustrate how international diplomacy can involve several interconnected negotiations.

Formal agreements may address diplomatic recognition and cooperation.

At the same time, governments may negotiate separate matters involving military equipment, economic assistance, sanctions or territorial recognition.

The UAE's interest in advanced American aircraft became part of the broader strategic environment.

Morocco received American recognition of its sovereignty claim over Western Sahara.

Sudan sought removal from the American state sponsors of terrorism list and improved international financial relations.

These developments were not identical.

They involved different legal processes, political motivations and diplomatic consequences.

However, they demonstrate that normalization was connected to wider national interests.

This does not automatically invalidate the agreements.

Governments frequently negotiate diplomatic arrangements through combinations of political, economic and security considerations.

The important journalistic question is whether those arrangements are described accurately.

A political incentive should not be presented as a formal treaty provision unless the evidence supports that conclusion.

Likewise, an announced commitment should not be confused with a completed transaction.

Understanding these distinctions allows a more precise assessment of the Abraham Accords.

## 19\. The Criticism of Transactional Diplomacy

Critics of the Abraham Accords have described aspects of the process as transactional diplomacy.

The term refers to an approach in which governments pursue agreements through exchanges of political or strategic benefits.

In this interpretation, normalization was encouraged partly through incentives connected to other foreign policy priorities.

The Morocco and Sudan cases are frequently cited in this debate.

American recognition concerning Western Sahara and Sudan's removal from the terrorism list were major diplomatic developments associated with normalization.

Critics questioned whether such arrangements prioritized short-term political achievements over broader principles concerning self-determination and human rights.

Supporters offered a different perspective.

They argued that diplomacy often requires practical compromises.

They also maintained that establishing new relationships could reduce hostility and create opportunities for future cooperation.

The disagreement raises a wider question.

Should diplomatic success be measured primarily by the number of agreements signed?

Or should it be evaluated through the longer-term political, legal and humanitarian consequences?

A comprehensive assessment requires considering both the immediate achievements and the wider effects.

## 20\. Did the United States Change the Rules of Middle Eastern Diplomacy?

The Abraham Accords challenged a longstanding assumption in regional diplomacy.

For decades, many initiatives had treated Israeli-Palestinian peace as a central condition for comprehensive normalization between Israel and Arab states.

The Trump administration demonstrated that some governments were willing to pursue bilateral normalization without waiting for a final Israeli-Palestinian agreement.

This represented a significant diplomatic shift.

It expanded Israel's formal relationships in the region.

It created opportunities for economic and strategic cooperation.

It also changed the political environment surrounding Palestinian diplomacy.

However, the shift did not resolve the central Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Nor did it eliminate regional tensions involving Iran or other actors.

The agreements demonstrated that certain diplomatic relationships could develop independently of a comprehensive peace settlement.

Whether this approach would ultimately encourage or undermine broader peace remained contested.

The United States played an important role in facilitating the change.

But the long-term consequences depended on the decisions of regional governments and the political developments that followed.

## Conclusion — Diplomacy, Interests and the Meaning of Peace

The United States was central to the creation of the Abraham Accords.

The Trump administration used established relationships with Israel and Arab governments to facilitate a series of normalization agreements.

American officials helped connect diplomatic opportunities with broader strategic interests.

The agreements produced significant results.

Israel established formal relations with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.

Morocco restored and expanded official relations with Israel.

Sudan entered a normalization process, although domestic political instability prevented comprehensive implementation.

However, the diplomatic achievements were accompanied by important controversies.

The proposed sale of advanced American military equipment to the UAE raised questions about regional security and Israel's qualitative military edge.

American recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara intersected with a longstanding territorial dispute.

Sudan's normalization process became associated with its efforts to escape international economic isolation.

The Palestinian leadership was not a negotiating party to the agreements.

These factors demonstrate that the Abraham Accords were more than symbolic declarations of peace.

They were also products of national interests, political negotiations and strategic calculations.

**The agreements changed diplomatic relationships, but their lasting significance cannot be measured only by the number of signatures collected at the White House. It must also be measured by whether the relationships they created contribute to stability, political accountability and a more inclusive peace.**

The next chapter examines the practical consequences of normalization.

Trade, technology, tourism, investment and security cooperation became central elements of the new relationships.

But how much actually changed after 2020?

Which promises developed into functioning partnerships?

And how did political conflict affect the economic and strategic opportunities created by the Abraham Accords?

These questions are essential to understanding the agreements beyond the diplomacy that brought them into existence.

# Chapter 8 — Trade, Technology and Security: What Actually Changed?

## Introduction — Beyond the Diplomatic Ceremony

When the Abraham Accords were signed in September 2020, the participating governments promised a new era of regional cooperation.

Diplomatic normalization between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain was presented as an opportunity to expand trade, encourage investment, develop technological partnerships and strengthen regional stability.

Morocco subsequently restored official relations with Israel, while Sudan entered a normalization process that would face major political obstacles.

The agreements attracted international attention because they challenged longstanding diplomatic restrictions between Israel and parts of the Arab world.

However, the true significance of normalization could not be measured through ceremonies and political statements alone.

The more important question was what happened afterward.

Did businesses establish meaningful commercial relationships?

Did governments implement the agreements they signed?

Did direct travel encourage closer connections between societies?

Did technological partnerships produce measurable benefits?

And did new diplomatic relationships contribute to regional security?

The answers varied considerably.

Some initiatives produced functioning institutions, commercial agreements and regular diplomatic exchanges.

Others remained limited, controversial or incomplete.

The war in Gaza following October 7, 2023, introduced additional pressures.

Regional tensions complicated travel, investment and political cooperation.

The Abraham Accords therefore provide an important opportunity to examine the difference between diplomatic expectations and practical outcomes.

## 1\. Diplomatic Recognition as the Foundation

One of the most concrete achievements of the Abraham Accords was the establishment or restoration of official diplomatic relations.

Before 2020, Israel maintained peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan but lacked formal diplomatic relations with most Arab states.

The agreements with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain changed that situation.

Israel and the UAE established diplomatic missions and appointed ambassadors.

The UAE opened its embassy in Tel Aviv in July 2021.

Israel developed its diplomatic presence in Abu Dhabi.

Bahrain and Israel also established official diplomatic relations, creating channels for government communication and bilateral cooperation.

Morocco restored official contacts with Israel after two decades without functioning liaison offices.

These developments mattered because diplomatic relations provide the institutional foundation for other forms of cooperation.

Embassies facilitate official visits, commercial discussions, consular assistance and negotiations.

Government ministries can communicate directly.

Businesses can operate within a more predictable diplomatic environment.

However, the existence of diplomatic missions does not automatically indicate that relations are politically uncomplicated.

Governments may maintain embassies while disagreeing strongly over regional conflicts.

Diplomatic recognition is therefore a measurable achievement, but it should not be confused with comprehensive political reconciliation.

## 2\. Trade Between Israel and the United Arab Emirates

The UAE-Israel relationship became the most commercially developed partnership associated with the Abraham Accords.

The two countries had complementary economic interests.

The UAE had established itself as a major international center for trade, finance, logistics and investment.

Israel had developed significant industries in technology, medical innovation, agriculture and advanced manufacturing.

Normalization allowed companies to pursue direct commercial relationships that had previously faced political restrictions.

Trade expanded after 2020.

Government agencies and business organizations reported growing bilateral commercial activity.

However, trade statistics require careful interpretation.

Different sources may include or exclude diamonds, services, re-exports and particular categories of goods.

Figures reported by Israeli authorities may not be directly comparable with those published by Emirati institutions.

Currency conversion and the period covered can also affect comparisons.

For these reasons, claims about total trade should identify the reporting authority, the relevant year and the categories included.

What can be established is that direct commercial exchange became an important part of the bilateral relationship.

The UAE developed into a significant Arab trading partner for Israel.

This represented a substantial change from the period before formal normalization.

## 3\. The Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement

An important milestone occurred in May 2022, when Israel and the UAE signed a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement.

The agreement was designed to reduce trade barriers and strengthen commercial cooperation.

It entered into force in April 2023.

The CEPA provided a more detailed economic framework than the original normalization treaty.

It addressed tariffs, market access and other aspects of bilateral trade.

For businesses, such arrangements can reduce costs and improve predictability.

They may also encourage companies to establish longer-term commercial relationships.

However, the existence of a free trade agreement does not automatically guarantee economic growth.

Businesses must still identify viable markets.

Products must meet regulatory requirements.

Transport and financing arrangements must function.

Political and security conditions can influence commercial decisions.

The CEPA nevertheless represented a concrete institutional achievement.

It demonstrated that normalization had progressed beyond diplomatic recognition toward structured economic integration.

The agreement also created a framework capable of continuing beyond the governments that originally negotiated the Abraham Accords.

## 4\. Investment and Financial Cooperation

Investment was another major expectation surrounding normalization.

The UAE possesses substantial financial resources and internationally active investment institutions.

Israeli companies, particularly in technology-related sectors, often seek capital to support research, expansion and international growth.

Formal relations created opportunities for investors and companies to establish direct connections.

Financial institutions explored cooperation.

Business delegations visited one another.

Companies announced partnerships and investment initiatives.

However, announced investments should not automatically be treated as completed transactions.

A memorandum of understanding may express an intention to cooperate without creating a binding financial commitment.

A proposed investment may depend on regulatory approval or market conditions.

Some projects may be delayed, revised or abandoned.

For journalists, these distinctions are essential.

A government announcement can demonstrate diplomatic ambition.

A completed investment demonstrates that financial resources have actually been committed.

A functioning project provides stronger evidence of practical cooperation.

Evaluating the economic impact of the Abraham Accords therefore requires attention to implementation rather than publicity alone.

## 5\. Tourism and Direct Travel

Tourism became one of the most visible consequences of normalization.

Before 2020, direct travel between Israel and the UAE was restricted by the absence of formal diplomatic relations.

The agreements created opportunities for commercial aviation and tourism.

On August 31, 2020, an Israeli commercial aircraft carried a delegation from Tel Aviv to Abu Dhabi on a historic direct flight.

The journey became an early symbol of the new relationship.

Commercial airlines subsequently developed direct services between Israel and the UAE.

Israeli travelers visited Dubai and Abu Dhabi for tourism, business and other purposes.

The new routes also created opportunities for Emirati travelers and business representatives to visit Israel.

Morocco's normalization process supported the development of direct travel connections with Israel.

These links held particular significance for Israelis with Moroccan family backgrounds.

Travel created opportunities for personal encounters and cultural exchange.

However, tourism flows were not necessarily balanced.

The number of visitors traveling in each direction could differ substantially.

Political instability also affected demand.

Security concerns, aviation restrictions and regional conflict could interrupt travel.

The development of direct flights was therefore a concrete result of normalization, but their continued operation depended on conditions beyond the original agreements.

## 6\. Technology Partnerships

Technology cooperation became one of the most frequently discussed benefits of the Abraham Accords.

Israel has developed a substantial technology sector involving software, cybersecurity, medical devices, agricultural innovation and other advanced industries.

The UAE has invested heavily in digital transformation and economic diversification.

These priorities created potential areas of cooperation.

Companies and institutions explored partnerships in healthcare, financial technology, artificial intelligence and digital infrastructure.

However, technology partnerships vary in significance.

Some involve commercial sales.

Others involve joint research, investment or knowledge exchange.

A partnership announcement does not necessarily mean that a product has been developed or deployed.

Similarly, the existence of a commercial agreement does not establish that its benefits are widely distributed.

The most meaningful assessments examine whether projects became operational, whether they generated measurable results and whether their implementation complied with applicable laws and ethical standards.

Technology cooperation can provide economic opportunities.

It can also raise questions concerning data protection, surveillance and accountability.

These considerations are especially important when governments and private companies cooperate in sensitive digital sectors.

## 7\. Cybersecurity and Digital Risks

Cybersecurity is an important area of potential cooperation between Israel and several Gulf countries.

Governments and businesses increasingly depend on digital systems for banking, healthcare, transport, communications and public services.

Cyberattacks can disrupt essential infrastructure and create significant economic risks.

Israel has developed expertise in cybersecurity through its technology industry, research institutions and security sector.

The UAE has invested in digital infrastructure and cybersecurity capabilities.

Normalization created opportunities for more open commercial and institutional engagement.

However, cybersecurity cooperation must be distinguished from intelligence operations.

The sale of defensive software does not automatically imply participation in covert intelligence activities.

Similarly, claims concerning secret surveillance agreements require reliable evidence.

The use of digital monitoring technologies can raise serious human rights concerns.

Some tools designed for security purposes may also be used to monitor journalists, activists or political opponents.

Responsible technological cooperation therefore requires transparency, appropriate oversight and respect for privacy and human rights.

The Abraham Accords expanded possibilities for digital cooperation.

They did not eliminate the need to scrutinize how sensitive technologies are used.

## 8\. Agriculture and Food Security

Food security is an important priority for several Middle Eastern countries.

The UAE faces environmental challenges including limited freshwater resources, high temperatures and restricted agricultural land.

Israel has developed technologies involving irrigation, greenhouse cultivation, agricultural research and water management.

These capabilities created opportunities for cooperation.

Businesses and research institutions explored agricultural technologies intended to improve resource efficiency.

Potential applications included precision irrigation, controlled-environment farming and more efficient food production.

However, agricultural innovation is not a simple solution to food insecurity.

Successful implementation depends on energy costs, infrastructure, local conditions and long-term financial viability.

Food security also involves international supply chains and access to affordable food.

The potential benefits of cooperation must therefore be assessed through functioning projects and measurable outcomes.

The broader significance lies in the possibility of applying technological expertise to shared environmental challenges.

Such cooperation may provide benefits beyond bilateral trade.

But those benefits should be demonstrated rather than assumed.

## 9\. Water Management and Climate Challenges

Water scarcity is a major regional concern.

The Middle East includes some of the world's most water-stressed environments.

Population growth, urban development, agricultural demand and climate change place increasing pressure on available resources.

Israel has developed extensive experience in desalination, wastewater reuse and efficient irrigation.

The UAE relies heavily on desalination and has invested in water infrastructure and environmental technologies.

These circumstances created opportunities for research and commercial cooperation.

Water management is also a field in which regional collaboration may offer wider benefits.

Environmental challenges do not stop at national borders.

However, cooperation between governments does not automatically resolve inequalities in access to water.

Water availability in the Palestinian territories, for example, is influenced by infrastructure, political arrangements, occupation-related restrictions and resource management.

A comprehensive discussion of regional water security must therefore consider both technology and political conditions.

The Abraham Accords created new opportunities for cooperation.

Their environmental value depends on whether projects improve sustainability, access and long-term resource management.

## 10\. Energy Cooperation and Environmental Controversies

Energy cooperation was another area of interest following normalization.

The UAE is a major producer of oil and gas while also investing in renewable energy.

Israel has developed offshore natural gas resources and energy-related technologies.

These different capabilities created opportunities for commercial partnerships.

However, some proposed projects became controversial.

One example involved plans associated with transporting oil through existing infrastructure between Israel's Red Sea and Mediterranean ports.

Environmental organizations raised concerns about the potential consequences of increased oil transport near sensitive marine ecosystems.

The Gulf of Eilat contains environmentally important coral reefs.

A major oil spill could have serious ecological and economic consequences.

The controversy demonstrated that commercial cooperation can create environmental risks.

Government support for a project does not necessarily establish that it is environmentally sustainable.

Public oversight, environmental assessment and regulatory accountability remain important.

The example illustrates a broader principle.

The success of normalization should not be measured only by the financial value of proposed projects.

Its environmental and social consequences also matter.

## 11\. Healthcare and Scientific Cooperation

Healthcare was another area in which normalization created opportunities.

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of international medical research and cooperation.

Israel and the UAE both invested in healthcare systems, research and medical technologies.

The establishment of diplomatic relations created new opportunities for institutions and companies to communicate directly.

Potential areas of cooperation included medical devices, diagnostics, research and digital healthcare.

Scientific collaboration can provide benefits beyond commercial exchange.

It may support the development of new treatments, improved diagnostic systems and more efficient healthcare delivery.

However, the significance of specific projects depends on their implementation.

Research announcements should be distinguished from published findings.

Commercial partnerships should be distinguished from clinically demonstrated improvements.

A rigorous assessment requires examining the evidence behind claims of medical innovation.

The Abraham Accords created a diplomatic environment in which cooperation became easier.

Whether individual initiatives improved health outcomes is a separate question.

## 12\. Morocco and the Expansion of Commercial Relations

Morocco's normalization process produced a different pattern of cooperation.

The country's relationship with Israel was shaped partly by longstanding historical and cultural connections.

A substantial number of Israeli citizens have Moroccan family origins.

These connections created opportunities for tourism and cultural exchange.

Formal normalization also supported commercial cooperation.

The countries explored opportunities involving agriculture, water management, technology and investment.

Direct travel links facilitated contact between businesses and communities.

However, Morocco's economic relationship with Israel developed within a different political environment from that of the UAE.

The Western Sahara dispute remained central to Moroccan foreign policy.

Public opposition to normalization also influenced the political context.

The relationship therefore cannot be evaluated solely through trade statistics.

Cultural, diplomatic and strategic factors were important as well.

The practical achievements of normalization must be considered alongside the political controversies that accompanied it.

## 13\. Bahrain and the Limits of Economic Scale

Bahrain established formal diplomatic relations with Israel in 2020.

The agreement created opportunities for government communication, tourism, financial cooperation and technology partnerships.

However, Bahrain's economy is smaller than that of the UAE.

Its commercial relationship with Israel therefore developed on a different scale.

The kingdom's importance in the Abraham Accords was not primarily determined by the volume of bilateral trade.

Its strategic position and security relationships were significant.

Bahrain hosts the headquarters of the United States Navy's Fifth Fleet.

It maintains close relationships with the United States and Gulf partners.

Normalization expanded the range of diplomatic relationships available to the Bahraini government.

However, the relationship also faced domestic political opposition and concerns about the Palestinian question.

Economic cooperation did not eliminate those tensions.

The Bahraini case demonstrates that the significance of normalization cannot always be measured primarily through commercial figures.

Political and strategic considerations may be equally important.

## 14\. Sudan: The Limits of an Unfinished Process

Sudan illustrates a very different outcome.

The country announced steps toward normalization in October 2020 and signed the Abraham Accords Declaration in January 2021.

However, its domestic political environment remained unstable.

The transitional government faced disagreements over political authority and economic reform.

The military coup of October 2021 disrupted the transition.

The war that began in April 2023 devastated the country's institutions and created a major humanitarian crisis.

These developments prevented the establishment of comprehensive bilateral relations comparable to those developed by the UAE.

Sudan therefore cannot be treated as an example of fully implemented normalization.

The distinction between signing a declaration and establishing a functioning diplomatic relationship is essential.

Sudan's experience demonstrates that international agreements depend on domestic political conditions.

Diplomatic commitments cannot be implemented effectively when government institutions are unstable or overwhelmed by armed conflict.

## 15\. Security Cooperation and Regional Concerns

Security cooperation was part of the wider strategic environment surrounding the Abraham Accords.

Israel and some Gulf governments shared concerns about missile threats, regional instability and aspects of Iran's military activities.

The agreements created opportunities for more open dialogue.

However, normalization did not establish a single formal military alliance involving all participating countries.

The UAE, Bahrain and Morocco had different security priorities.

Sudan's political instability prevented sustained implementation.

The extent of intelligence cooperation between governments is not always publicly disclosed.

Claims about covert operations should therefore be treated cautiously.

Publicly documented defense agreements and official statements provide a stronger basis for assessing cooperation.

The Abraham Accords changed diplomatic relationships.

They did not erase the differences between participating countries' security policies.

## 16\. The Negev Summit and Regional Cooperation

An important diplomatic development occurred in March 2022.

Foreign ministers from Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, Egypt and the United States met in Israel.

The gathering became known as the Negev Summit.

The meeting demonstrated that normalization could support multilateral diplomatic engagement.

The participants discussed regional cooperation and established working groups addressing several policy areas.

These included security, energy, education, health, tourism and other forms of cooperation.

The summit represented an attempt to develop a broader framework beyond individual bilateral agreements.

However, it did not include the Palestinian leadership.

That absence reinforced criticism that regional cooperation was developing without a parallel breakthrough in Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy.

The summit also demonstrated the importance of distinguishing between diplomatic dialogue and implemented policy.

Working groups and joint statements can create opportunities.

Their practical significance depends on whether they lead to functioning programmes and measurable outcomes.

## 17\. The Impact of October 7, 2023

The Hamas-led attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023, and the war in Gaza that followed placed the Abraham Accords under severe political pressure.

The attacks killed approximately 1,200 people in Israel, and 251 people were taken hostage.

Israel's subsequent military campaign caused extensive Palestinian casualties, destruction and displacement in Gaza.

The humanitarian crisis intensified criticism of Israeli military operations across the Arab world.

Governments that had normalized relations with Israel faced renewed political challenges.

Morocco experienced demonstrations opposing normalization and expressing solidarity with Palestinians.

Bahrain's relationship with Israel came under pressure amid regional anger over the war.

The UAE maintained diplomatic relations while calling for humanitarian assistance and political efforts to address the conflict.

The crisis affected the environment for tourism, investment and official cooperation.

However, the impact was not identical across all countries or sectors.

Some diplomatic channels remained open.

Other forms of engagement became more politically sensitive.

The war demonstrated that bilateral normalization could not be separated entirely from the wider Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

## 18\. Did Normalization Improve Regional Security?

One of the central claims made by supporters of the Abraham Accords was that closer diplomatic relations could contribute to regional stability.

The agreements created official communication channels.

They encouraged cooperation between governments that had previously lacked formal relations.

They also supported discussions concerning shared security concerns.

These developments may help reduce certain diplomatic barriers.

However, regional security involves much more than bilateral recognition.

The Middle East continued to experience conflicts involving Israel, Palestinians, Iran, Lebanon, Yemen and other actors.

The Abraham Accords did not resolve these conflicts.

Nor did they create a comprehensive regional security architecture.

It would therefore be inaccurate to claim that the agreements established lasting peace across the Middle East.

At the same time, the persistence of conflict does not automatically mean that every form of diplomatic cooperation failed.

The agreements should be evaluated according to their specific objectives and measurable outcomes.

They created new relationships.

Whether those relationships contributed to broader stability remains a more complicated question.

## 19\. Measuring Success Beyond Political Announcements

Evaluating the Abraham Accords requires clear criteria.

Diplomatic success can be measured through the establishment of embassies, official visits and functioning bilateral agreements.

Economic success can be assessed through verified trade statistics, completed investments and operational commercial projects.

Tourism can be measured through passenger numbers, direct routes and visitor flows.

Technological cooperation can be evaluated through completed research, functioning products and documented partnerships.

Security cooperation requires particular care because some activities are not publicly disclosed.

Political success is more difficult to measure.

Did the agreements reduce tensions?

Did they create meaningful opportunities for conflict prevention?

Did they influence policies concerning Palestinian rights?

Did they strengthen public acceptance of peaceful relations?

These questions cannot be answered solely through economic statistics.

They require examination of political developments, public opinion and the experiences of affected communities.

A balanced assessment must also distinguish between the different participating countries.

The UAE developed substantial institutional and commercial relations with Israel.

Bahrain established diplomatic relations but operated on a different economic scale.

Morocco restored official relations within a distinctive political and historical context.

Sudan's normalization process remained incomplete.

There was no single outcome shared equally by all participants.

## 20\. Economic Integration and the Limits of Peace

The Abraham Accords raise a broader question about the relationship between economic cooperation and political peace.

Trade and investment can create shared interests.

Businesses may benefit from stability and predictable relationships.

Tourism can encourage personal encounters.

Scientific cooperation can address common challenges.

These developments may contribute to a more interconnected region.

However, economic integration does not automatically resolve political conflicts.

Historical grievances, territorial disputes, security concerns and questions of national identity may continue even when commercial relationships expand.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict demonstrates this limitation.

The Abraham Accords created new relationships between Israel and participating Arab governments.

They did not establish Palestinian sovereignty or resolve disputes over borders, settlements, Jerusalem and refugees.

The agreements therefore illustrate both the possibilities and limits of economic diplomacy.

Cooperation can create opportunities.

It cannot substitute for political decisions concerning rights, security and self-determination.

## Conclusion — What Actually Changed?

The Abraham Accords produced meaningful changes in relations between Israel and several Arab countries.

Diplomatic missions were established.

Direct travel became possible.

Commercial relationships expanded.

The UAE and Israel signed a comprehensive economic partnership agreement.

Governments and businesses developed new channels for cooperation in technology, agriculture, healthcare and other sectors.

The Negev Summit demonstrated the possibility of broader multilateral engagement.

These were concrete achievements.

However, the results differed substantially between participating countries.

The UAE developed the most extensive commercial partnership.

Bahrain established official diplomatic relations within a different economic and security environment.

Morocco restored and expanded ties shaped by historical connections and the Western Sahara dispute.

Sudan's normalization process remained incomplete because of political instability and war.

The agreements also faced major limitations.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remained unresolved.

Regional security threats continued.

The war in Gaza after October 7, 2023, placed severe pressure on diplomatic relationships and public attitudes.

Economic cooperation did not eliminate political disagreements.

**The Abraham Accords demonstrated that diplomatic normalization can produce practical results. But they also showed that trade agreements, technology partnerships and official recognition cannot, by themselves, resolve the deeper conflicts shaping the Middle East.**

The next chapter examines how the events of October 7, 2023, and the subsequent war in Gaza transformed the political environment surrounding the Abraham Accords.

The agreements had been promoted as a pathway toward greater regional stability.

The renewed conflict raised difficult questions about their resilience, their limitations and the future of Arab-Israeli relations.

# Chapter 9 — October 7, 2023, and the Future of Arab-Israeli Relations

## Introduction — When Regional Diplomacy Faced Its Greatest Test

On October 7, 2023, the political landscape of the Middle East changed dramatically.

Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups launched coordinated attacks against southern Israel, killing approximately 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages into Gaza. The victims included civilians from communities near the Gaza border, people attending a music festival, and members of the Israeli security forces.

Israel responded with a major military campaign in Gaza.

The war caused enormous Palestinian casualties, widespread destruction, repeated displacement and a humanitarian catastrophe. The conflict also expanded regional tensions involving Lebanon, Yemen, Iran and other actors.

For the governments that had signed the Abraham Accords, these developments created a difficult political reality.

Only three years earlier, the agreements had been celebrated as the beginning of a new era in Arab-Israeli relations.

The United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco had established or restored diplomatic relationships with Israel. Economic cooperation had expanded, direct travel had become possible, and governments had begun discussing regional partnerships.

The agreements had been promoted as evidence that diplomatic engagement could overcome longstanding divisions.

October 7 and the war that followed challenged that optimism.

The participating Arab governments now faced competing pressures: maintaining diplomatic relationships, responding to the suffering of Palestinian civilians, addressing their own security concerns and managing public opposition to normalization.

The question was no longer simply whether Arab governments were willing to establish relations with Israel.

It was whether those relationships could survive one of the most destructive periods in the modern Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

## 1\. October 7, 2023: The Attacks That Changed the Region

The attacks of October 7 began with rocket fire from Gaza and the breach of the barriers separating the territory from Israel.

Armed attackers entered Israeli communities, military facilities and the site of the Nova music festival.

Civilians were killed in their homes, on roads and at public gatherings.

Others were abducted and taken into Gaza.

The attacks caused profound trauma in Israeli society.

Families searched for missing relatives.

Communities mourned those killed.

Survivors described experiences of terror, loss and displacement.

The taking of hostages became a central issue in Israeli domestic politics and international diplomacy.

Under international humanitarian law, deliberately attacking civilians and taking hostages are prohibited.

The scale and nature of the attacks also affected Israel's relationships with foreign governments.

Some Arab governments condemned attacks against civilians while emphasizing that the violence occurred within a wider, unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Others placed greater emphasis on the need to prevent further escalation.

These different responses reflected the political complexities of regional diplomacy.

For the Abraham Accords countries, October 7 created an immediate test.

Their governments had established relations with Israel, but they also maintained longstanding positions concerning Palestinian rights and the need for a political settlement.

![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/25/d6/25d63f5d-099c-45e8-ad1b-346bc1c986ba/content/images/2026/10/Displaced_Palestinians_in_Deir_el-Balah_line_up_to_receive_food_provided_by_charitable_organizations_-cropped--1.jpg)

Displaced Palestinians wait to receive food distributed by charitable organizations in Deir al-Balah, Gaza Strip, August 27, 2024.

## 2\. Israel's Military Response and the War in Gaza

Following the attacks, Israel launched a large-scale military campaign against Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza.

Israeli leaders stated that their objectives included dismantling Hamas's military capabilities, preventing further attacks and securing the release of hostages.

The military campaign involved extensive airstrikes, ground operations and restrictions affecting the movement of people and supplies.

The consequences for Gaza's civilian population were devastating.

Large areas of residential infrastructure were destroyed or damaged.

Hospitals and healthcare services faced severe disruption.

Schools, roads, water systems and other essential facilities were affected.

Repeated displacement left many families without secure housing.

Food insecurity, inadequate sanitation and limited access to medical care became major humanitarian concerns.

International organizations repeatedly warned about the consequences for civilians.

The war also generated serious legal and political disputes concerning the conduct of hostilities, the protection of civilians, humanitarian access and the obligations of the parties under international law.

Israeli officials maintained that military operations were directed against Hamas and other armed groups, while critics challenged the proportionality and legality of aspects of the campaign.

The humanitarian consequences placed enormous pressure on Arab governments maintaining diplomatic relations with Israel.

Their responses became an important measure of how normalization functioned during a major regional crisis.

## 3\. Why October 7 Challenged the Abraham Accords

The Abraham Accords were based on the possibility of expanding cooperation between Israel and Arab governments despite the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Supporters argued that diplomatic engagement could create shared interests in stability.

Trade, tourism, technology and security cooperation were expected to strengthen relationships.

However, the agreements did not directly resolve the political issues underlying the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

They did not establish Palestinian statehood.

They did not determine the future of the occupied West Bank.

They did not resolve disputes concerning Jerusalem, settlements, refugees or borders.

The war in Gaza demonstrated how these unresolved questions could continue to influence the wider region.

Public anger over Palestinian civilian suffering increased the political cost of normalization.

Governments that had promoted cooperation with Israel faced demands to reconsider their relationships.

Businesses became more cautious about public partnerships.

Cultural exchanges and tourism faced additional difficulties.

The crisis revealed a distinction between institutional relationships and broader public acceptance.

Diplomatic agreements could remain formally intact even when enthusiasm for normalization declined sharply.

## 4\. The United Arab Emirates: Maintaining Relations Under Pressure

The UAE faced one of the most significant diplomatic challenges after October 7.

Its relationship with Israel had become the most commercially developed partnership associated with the Abraham Accords.

The countries had established embassies, expanded trade and negotiated a comprehensive economic partnership agreement.

The UAE also presented itself as a regional diplomatic actor capable of maintaining relationships with different governments.

Following October 7, Emirati officials condemned attacks against civilians and called for the protection of civilian life.

As the humanitarian crisis in Gaza deepened, the UAE increased its criticism of the consequences of Israeli military operations.

It supported humanitarian assistance and diplomatic initiatives concerning Gaza.

However, the Emirates did not sever diplomatic relations with Israel.

This decision reflected the government's assessment that maintaining official channels continued to serve its interests.

Diplomatic contact could provide opportunities for communication, humanitarian coordination and political engagement.

At the same time, continued relations exposed the UAE to criticism from those who believed normalization should be suspended.

The UAE's experience illustrated a central dilemma.

A government may believe that maintaining diplomatic relations provides greater influence than withdrawing recognition.

But that argument must ultimately be assessed through evidence of what diplomatic engagement achieves.

## 5\. Humanitarian Diplomacy and the UAE's Role in Gaza

The humanitarian crisis in Gaza became an important focus of Emirati foreign policy.

The UAE provided medical and humanitarian assistance, supported relief operations and helped arrange treatment for wounded and seriously ill Palestinians.

Its activities included support for medical facilities and the evacuation of patients for treatment.

These efforts demonstrated that a government maintaining diplomatic relations with Israel could also participate in humanitarian assistance for Palestinians.

However, humanitarian diplomacy should not be confused with political conflict resolution.

Medical treatment can save lives.

Food and water supplies can reduce immediate suffering.

Humanitarian operations cannot, by themselves, resolve questions concerning Palestinian sovereignty, occupation or long-term security.

The effectiveness of assistance also depends on access.

Relief organizations may face restrictions, insecurity and logistical obstacles that prevent aid from reaching intended recipients.

The UAE's humanitarian activities therefore need to be considered alongside the broader political environment.

They demonstrate one use of diplomatic and financial resources.

They do not establish that normalization has resolved the underlying conflict.

## 6\. Bahrain: Diplomatic Relations and Political Opposition

Bahrain's relationship with Israel also came under pressure after October 7.

The kingdom had established diplomatic relations in 2020.

Its decision was influenced by strategic partnerships, regional security concerns and opportunities for cooperation.

However, normalization had remained controversial among parts of Bahraini society.

The war in Gaza intensified that opposition.

In November 2023, Bahrain's parliament announced measures concerning relations with Israel, including statements about the return of ambassadors and the suspension of economic ties.

The announcements attracted international attention.

However, Bahrain's parliament does not independently control the kingdom's foreign policy.

The government retained authority over diplomatic relations.

It is therefore important to distinguish parliamentary statements from formal executive decisions.

The broader diplomatic relationship was not definitively terminated.

The episode demonstrated how normalization could become a source of domestic political controversy.

It also showed that diplomatic relationships may survive institutionally even when political opposition becomes more visible.

## 7\. Morocco: Historical Connections and Renewed Protest

Morocco's relationship with Israel developed within a different historical context.

The country has longstanding Jewish cultural heritage, and many Israeli citizens have Moroccan family origins.

Normalization in 2020 restored official diplomatic contacts and created opportunities for tourism, business and cultural exchange.

However, Morocco also has a strong history of public solidarity with Palestinians.

The war in Gaza intensified opposition to normalization.

Demonstrations took place in Moroccan cities, with participants calling for Palestinian rights and criticizing Israeli military operations.

Some protesters demanded that Morocco reverse its normalization decision.

The government continued to maintain official relations while expressing support for Palestinian rights and humanitarian concerns.

This created a politically sensitive balance.

Morocco's relationship with Israel was connected to cultural history, diplomatic interests and developments surrounding Western Sahara.

At the same time, public opposition demonstrated that historical connections between communities did not automatically translate into acceptance of government policy.

The Moroccan experience showed that normalization can create institutional relationships without eliminating political disagreement within society.

## 8\. Sudan: A Different Crisis

Sudan's position was fundamentally different.

The country had announced steps toward normalization in October 2020 and signed the Abraham Accords Declaration in January 2021.

However, its normalization process remained incomplete.

Sudan's political transition was disrupted by the military coup of October 2021.

In April 2023, war erupted between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces.

The conflict caused mass displacement, widespread violence and severe humanitarian suffering.

Government institutions were disrupted.

Diplomatic priorities shifted toward the country's internal crisis.

Consequently, Sudan did not develop a functioning relationship with Israel comparable to those established by the UAE, Bahrain and Morocco.

Its experience cannot be evaluated in the same way.

The central obstacle was not simply the war in Gaza.

It was the collapse of Sudan's own political transition and the devastating armed conflict within the country.

Sudan illustrates the importance of domestic stability in implementing international agreements.

## 9\. Saudi Arabia: The Agreement That Had Not Been Signed

Before October 7, 2023, the United States was pursuing discussions intended to facilitate normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Such an agreement would have carried considerable regional significance.

Saudi Arabia is a major political, economic and religious power.

It has extensive relationships with the United States and an influential role in Arab and Islamic diplomacy.

Negotiations involved several complex issues.

These included American security commitments, Saudi interest in civilian nuclear cooperation, regional security and the Palestinian question.

However, Saudi Arabia had not signed the Abraham Accords.

The October 7 attacks and the war in Gaza transformed the diplomatic environment.

The humanitarian catastrophe increased political pressure concerning Palestinian rights.

Saudi officials reiterated that normalization required meaningful progress toward Palestinian statehood.

By 2025, the Saudi government continued to insist on a credible path to Palestinian sovereignty as a condition for formal relations with Israel.

The Saudi case demonstrated the limits of the approach that had produced the original Abraham Accords.

A major regional government was unwilling to separate normalization entirely from the Palestinian question.

This remained a central obstacle to expanding the agreements.

## 10\. The Palestinian Question Returns to the Center of Diplomacy

One of the most significant consequences of October 7 and the war in Gaza was the renewed prominence of the Palestinian question in regional diplomacy.

The Abraham Accords had demonstrated that some Arab governments were prepared to normalize relations with Israel before a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian settlement.

However, the war showed that unresolved Palestinian political demands could still affect the entire region.

Arab governments faced renewed pressure to address Palestinian statehood, humanitarian protection and the future governance of Gaza.

The conflict also raised questions about the relationship between normalization and political influence.

Could governments with formal relations persuade Israel to change particular policies?

Could diplomatic contact help secure humanitarian access?

Could regional cooperation support reconstruction and future political arrangements?

Or had normalization reduced the incentives for a negotiated settlement?

These questions remained contested.

The war demonstrated that regional diplomacy could not permanently set aside the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Even governments prioritizing bilateral economic and security cooperation had to confront its consequences.

## 11\. Public Opinion and the Limits of Government Agreements

The Abraham Accords were negotiated by governments.

Their implementation depended partly on whether businesses, institutions and citizens were willing to develop relationships.

Before October 7, tourism and commercial exchange had created opportunities for greater contact.

However, the war in Gaza intensified public opposition to normalization in parts of the Arab world.

Images of civilian suffering and destruction influenced political debate.

For many people, cooperation with Israel became more controversial.

The distinction between official policy and public opinion became increasingly visible.

Governments could maintain diplomatic relations while citizens opposed those relationships.

Businesses could continue existing contracts while avoiding public announcements about new partnerships.

Cultural organizations could face pressure to suspend exchanges.

These developments illustrate an important limitation.

Diplomatic normalization does not automatically create social acceptance.

Public trust develops through experiences, perceptions and political conditions.

When major violence occurs, the social foundations of diplomatic cooperation can weaken even if formal agreements remain intact.

## 12\. Trade and Investment During Regional Conflict

Economic cooperation was one of the principal achievements of the Abraham Accords.

The UAE-Israel relationship had developed substantial commercial links.

Other participating countries had pursued trade, tourism and investment initiatives.

However, regional conflict introduced new risks.

Businesses had to consider political uncertainty, transport disruption, reputational concerns and changing demand.

Tourism was especially vulnerable.

Travelers could postpone or cancel journeys because of security concerns.

Airlines could alter routes or suspend services.

Commercial projects could encounter delays.

However, the effects were not identical across sectors.

Some existing business relationships continued.

Certain government-level partnerships remained active.

Other initiatives slowed or became less visible.

The survival of economic cooperation demonstrated that the agreements had created institutional relationships capable of continuing during periods of crisis.

But the slowdown in public-facing cooperation also showed that economic integration was sensitive to the broader political environment.

## 13\. Iran and the Wider Regional Conflict

The war in Gaza did not remain confined to Israel and the Palestinian territories.

It contributed to wider regional tensions involving Iran and armed groups aligned with or supported by Tehran.

Israel and Iran had already been longstanding regional rivals.

Their confrontation intensified through direct military exchanges and developments involving other countries.

Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and other armed actors became part of the wider security crisis in different ways.

The expansion of regional confrontation created additional concerns for Gulf governments.

The UAE and Bahrain had strategic reasons to maintain security relationships with the United States.

However, Gulf governments also had strong interests in avoiding a wider regional war.

The UAE maintained diplomatic channels with Iran and pursued efforts to reduce tensions.

This illustrates why the Abraham Accords should not be understood simply as a unified anti-Iran military alliance.

Participating governments had overlapping concerns but different priorities.

The broader conflict made those differences increasingly important.

## 14\. The Risk of Regional Escalation

Regional security became more complicated as hostilities expanded.

Attacks involving Israel, Iran and armed groups in neighboring countries raised concerns about the possibility of a wider war.

Commercial shipping routes, energy infrastructure and civilian populations faced additional risks.

The Red Sea became an important area of concern because attacks on shipping disrupted maritime trade.

Regional governments had to balance security cooperation with efforts to avoid escalation.

For countries associated with the Abraham Accords, this created difficult choices.

Maintaining relations with Israel could support diplomatic communication and certain security interests.

However, visible cooperation during major regional conflict could also create political and security risks.

The situation demonstrated that normalization was not a substitute for a comprehensive regional security framework.

Diplomatic relationships could help governments communicate.

They could not guarantee that military confrontation would be prevented.

## 15\. The Role of the United States After October 7

The United States remained a central diplomatic actor.

The Biden administration supported Israel following the October 7 attacks while also participating in negotiations concerning hostages, ceasefires and humanitarian assistance.

Washington worked with regional partners, including Egypt and Qatar, in efforts to secure agreements between Israel and Hamas.

The administration also continued to view broader Arab-Israeli normalization as an important diplomatic objective.

However, the war complicated efforts to expand the Abraham Accords.

Saudi normalization became more difficult.

Arab governments emphasized humanitarian concerns and Palestinian political rights.

When Donald Trump returned to the presidency in January 2025, expanding the Abraham Accords remained part of American regional diplomacy.

Yet the political environment was substantially different from 2020.

The war in Gaza, regional military confrontations and changing public attitudes created new obstacles.

American mediation remained important.

But the experience demonstrated that diplomatic influence has limits when the parties disagree over fundamental political conditions.

## 16\. The October 2025 Ceasefire and Its Limitations

In October 2025, a United States-brokered ceasefire agreement was intended to halt major fighting in Gaza and establish a framework for further steps.

The agreement helped secure the release of remaining hostages and increased humanitarian access.

However, implementation of its broader political and security provisions encountered serious obstacles.

Questions remained concerning the future administration of Gaza, Hamas's armed capabilities, Israeli military control and reconstruction.

Violence continued despite the ceasefire.

By October 2026, reports indicated that major elements of the intended postwar arrangements remained unfulfilled.

The continued insecurity and humanitarian suffering demonstrated the difference between reaching a ceasefire agreement and achieving a durable political settlement.

For the Abraham Accords countries, the situation remained a diplomatic challenge.

They had an interest in regional stability and economic cooperation.

But meaningful progress required more than restoring commercial activity.

The future of Gaza and the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict remained central to the region's political outlook.

## 17\. A Renewed Diplomatic Meeting in September 2026

Despite the pressures of the preceding years, the Abraham Accords framework continued to attract American diplomatic attention.

In September 2026, representatives associated with the United States, Israel, the UAE, Bahrain and Morocco participated in a renewed official meeting in New York.

The meeting was reported as the first official gathering of the Abraham Accords countries since the October 7 attacks.

Its significance was partly symbolic.

It demonstrated that the governments had not abandoned the framework for cooperation.

It also reflected continued American interest in expanding diplomatic relationships.

However, a meeting does not establish that political tensions have disappeared.

Nor does it guarantee that new countries will join the agreements.

The significance of renewed diplomacy depends on whether it leads to concrete cooperation and addresses the concerns that have complicated normalization since 2023.

The meeting illustrated the continued existence of the Abraham Accords as a diplomatic framework.

It did not resolve the wider conflicts affecting the region.

## 18\. What Does Diplomatic Resilience Really Mean?

The survival of diplomatic relations after October 7 has been described by some analysts as evidence of the Abraham Accords' resilience.

There is a basis for that assessment.

The UAE, Bahrain and Morocco did not formally terminate their normalization relationships with Israel during the first years of the Gaza war.

Official communication continued, even as political tensions increased.

Some commercial and strategic relationships remained active.

However, resilience should not be confused with the absence of damage.

Public opposition increased.

Tourism and cultural exchanges faced disruption.

New commercial initiatives became more politically sensitive.

Diplomatic relations could survive while broader enthusiasm declined.

A more precise assessment therefore distinguishes several levels of cooperation.

Formal recognition may remain intact.

Government communication may continue.

Existing commercial contracts may survive.

But public acceptance, cultural exchange and prospects for expanding normalization may weaken.

The Abraham Accords demonstrated institutional durability.

Their broader social and political foundations faced a much more difficult test.

## 19\. Can Normalization Influence Israeli Policy?

One of the central arguments in favor of normalization is that diplomatic engagement creates opportunities for influence.

A government with an embassy in Israel can communicate directly with Israeli officials.

It can raise concerns through diplomatic channels.

It may also use economic and political relationships to encourage particular policies.

However, the effectiveness of such influence is difficult to measure.

Public criticism does not necessarily produce policy change.

Private diplomatic discussions are often not fully disclosed.

Humanitarian initiatives may improve conditions for particular communities without resolving broader political disputes.

The war in Gaza raised questions about the influence available to governments that had normalized relations.

Did their diplomatic relationships help reduce violence?

Did they secure humanitarian access?

Did they contribute to negotiations?

These questions require examination of specific actions and documented outcomes.

The existence of diplomatic relations alone does not prove that influence has been effective.

But the persistence of conflict does not establish that every diplomatic effort was without value.

A balanced assessment must consider both the possibilities and limitations of engagement.

## 20\. The Future of Arab-Israeli Relations

The future of the Abraham Accords depends on several interconnected developments.

One is the security situation across the Middle East.

Regional military confrontation can disrupt economic activity and create political pressure on governments.

Another is the future of Gaza.

Reconstruction, governance, humanitarian conditions and security arrangements will influence regional diplomacy.

A third factor is the Palestinian question.

Saudi Arabia and other governments have emphasized that meaningful progress toward Palestinian statehood remains important to future normalization.

Public opinion will also matter.

Government agreements may be durable, but broader social acceptance cannot be assumed.

Economic cooperation is another consideration.

Existing commercial relationships may provide incentives for maintaining diplomatic contact.

However, trade alone cannot resolve disputes concerning sovereignty, occupation and national identity.

Finally, American diplomacy will remain influential.

The United States has played a central role in negotiating and supporting the Abraham Accords.

Yet Washington cannot determine the political decisions of every government involved.

The future of normalization will depend on how regional states balance their national interests with wider demands for security, political rights and peace.

## Conclusion — The Abraham Accords After October 7

The attacks of October 7, 2023, and the war in Gaza transformed the political environment surrounding the Abraham Accords.

The agreements had been presented as a major step toward a more cooperative Middle East.

They created new diplomatic relationships, expanded commercial opportunities and challenged longstanding assumptions about Arab-Israeli diplomacy.

However, the renewed conflict demonstrated that normalization had not resolved the fundamental political disputes affecting the region.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remained central.

The humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza intensified public opposition to normalization.

Regional military tensions created new security risks.

Governments that had established relations with Israel faced difficult political choices.

Yet the agreements did not simply collapse.

The UAE, Bahrain and Morocco maintained formal diplomatic relationships, although the nature and visibility of cooperation changed.

Sudan's normalization process remained incomplete because of its own political crisis and war.

Saudi Arabia continued to link potential normalization to meaningful progress toward Palestinian statehood.

These developments revealed both the durability and the limitations of the Abraham Accords.

Diplomatic institutions proved capable of surviving severe political pressure.

But the agreements did not prevent major conflict or create a comprehensive regional peace.

**October 7 demonstrated that diplomatic normalization can change relationships between governments, but lasting peace requires addressing the security, rights and political future of the people directly affected by conflict.**

The Abraham Accords remain an important part of Middle Eastern diplomacy.

Their future significance will depend not only on whether existing agreements survive, but also on whether regional governments can use their relationships to support a more stable and inclusive political order.

The final chapter examines that question directly.

Can the Abraham Accords contribute to lasting peace?

Or will they remain primarily agreements between governments in a region where fundamental political conflicts continue?

# Chapter 10 — Can the Abraham Accords Help Build Lasting Peace?

## Introduction — The Difference Between Normalization and Peace

When the Abraham Accords were signed in September 2020, the ceremony at the White House was presented as a turning point in Middle Eastern diplomacy.

Israel established new diplomatic relationships with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. Morocco subsequently restored official relations, while Sudan entered a normalization process that would remain incomplete.

For supporters, the agreements demonstrated that countries with complicated histories and longstanding political disagreements could establish new partnerships.

Diplomatic recognition created opportunities for trade, investment, tourism, technology and government cooperation.

For critics, however, the agreements raised a fundamental concern.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remained unresolved.

Palestinians had not participated in the negotiations, and the agreements did not establish a pathway to Palestinian statehood or end Israeli occupation.

The events of October 7, 2023, and the devastating war in Gaza that followed brought these questions into sharper focus.

The agreements survived significant political pressure, but they did not prevent renewed violence or broader regional instability.

Six years after their announcement, the Abraham Accords remain an important diplomatic framework.

Yet their ultimate significance depends on a question that cannot be answered through ceremonies, trade agreements or official recognition alone.

**Can normalization between governments contribute to a lasting peace that also addresses the rights, security and aspirations of the people living with conflict?**

The answer requires examining what the agreements achieved, what they left unresolved and what conditions would be necessary for a more comprehensive peace.

## 1\. What the Abraham Accords Changed

The Abraham Accords produced identifiable diplomatic changes.

Before 2020, Israel maintained formal peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan but lacked diplomatic relations with most Arab governments.

The UAE and Bahrain established official relations with Israel.

Morocco restored and expanded diplomatic contacts.

The countries created opportunities for commercial cooperation and official communication.

Embassies and diplomatic missions were established.

Direct flights connected countries that had previously maintained significant travel restrictions.

The UAE and Israel signed a comprehensive economic partnership agreement that entered into force in 2023.

These developments represented more than symbolic gestures.

They created institutions and relationships that could continue beyond the governments responsible for negotiating the original agreements.

The accords also challenged a longstanding diplomatic assumption.

For decades, many Arab governments had linked normalization with Israel to a comprehensive settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The agreements demonstrated that some governments were prepared to pursue bilateral relations without waiting for such a settlement.

This changed the regional diplomatic landscape.

However, diplomatic change and conflict resolution are different achievements.

The Abraham Accords expanded Israel's relationships with participating Arab governments.

They did not resolve the conflicts affecting the wider region.

## 2\. What the Agreements Did Not Resolve

The limitations of the Abraham Accords are central to understanding their long-term significance.

The agreements did not establish an independent Palestinian state.

They did not determine the final borders between Israel and a future Palestinian state.

They did not resolve the status of Jerusalem.

They did not settle the Palestinian refugee question.

They did not end Israeli occupation of the West Bank.

They did not establish a comprehensive regional security agreement.

Nor did they create a negotiated settlement between Israel and Palestinian representatives.

These unresolved issues remained politically significant after normalization.

The Hamas-led attacks of October 7, 2023, and the war in Gaza demonstrated the continuing capacity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to destabilize the region.

The agreements also did not eliminate tensions involving Iran, Lebanon, Yemen or other regional actors.

It would therefore be inaccurate to describe the Abraham Accords as a comprehensive peace settlement for the Middle East.

They were bilateral normalization agreements with broader diplomatic ambitions.

Their contribution to lasting peace must be evaluated within those limits.

## 3\. Peace Between Governments and Peace Between Societies

Diplomatic peace begins with decisions made by governments.

Leaders negotiate agreements.

Foreign ministries establish official relations.

Embassies open.

Commercial restrictions may be reduced.

These developments can be important.

However, peace between societies is a more complicated process.

It involves perceptions, historical experiences, political rights and public trust.

A government can establish relations with another state even when significant sections of its population oppose the decision.

Businesses may cooperate while public attitudes remain hostile.

Tourists may visit one another's countries without resolving deeper political disagreements.

The Abraham Accords created opportunities for contact between Israeli and Arab societies.

However, public acceptance varied across countries and communities.

The war in Gaza intensified opposition to normalization in parts of the Arab world.

This demonstrated that government agreements do not automatically create social reconciliation.

Lasting peace requires more than formal diplomatic recognition.

It also requires conditions in which communities can develop confidence that their security, rights and dignity will be respected.

## 4\. The Israeli Perspective: Recognition and Security

For Israel, the Abraham Accords represented an important diplomatic achievement.

The agreements expanded official relations with Arab governments.

They created economic opportunities and challenged the idea that Israel's regional acceptance depended entirely on a prior Israeli-Palestinian settlement.

For many Israelis, diplomatic recognition is connected to a broader desire for security and acceptance within the region.

Israel's history includes repeated wars, attacks against civilians and longstanding regional hostility.

The October 7 attacks reinforced fears about security and the consequences of armed confrontation.

The taking of hostages and the killing of civilians caused profound trauma.

These experiences influence Israeli public opinion and political decisions.

However, Israeli society is not politically uniform.

Citizens disagree about settlements, relations with Palestinians, military policy and the prospects for a negotiated settlement.

Some support expanding regional normalization as a means of strengthening security and economic cooperation.

Others emphasize that lasting security also requires addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Abraham Accords created new diplomatic opportunities for Israel.

Whether those opportunities contribute to lasting security depends partly on how they interact with the unresolved conflict.

## 5\. The Palestinian Perspective: Self-Determination and Political Rights

For Palestinians, the central questions remain sovereignty, political representation, security and national self-determination.

The Abraham Accords did not provide a negotiated settlement addressing these issues.

Palestinian leaders criticized the agreements because normalization proceeded without the conditions outlined in the Arab Peace Initiative.

They argued that Israel gained diplomatic recognition while the occupation and other central political disputes remained unresolved.

The war in Gaza further intensified concerns about the consequences of regional diplomacy that did not directly address Palestinian rights.

However, Palestinian perspectives are diverse.

Different political movements and communities have different approaches to negotiations, resistance, international diplomacy and the future of Palestinian governance.

The Palestinian Authority, Hamas, civil society organizations and independent political voices do not represent identical positions.

Nevertheless, meaningful political representation remains essential to any comprehensive peace process.

Agreements concerning regional cooperation may influence Palestinian lives.

But a lasting settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be negotiated exclusively by governments that do not represent Palestinians.

Their participation is necessary in determining their political future.

## 6\. Can Economic Cooperation Encourage Peace?

One of the central arguments supporting the Abraham Accords is that economic cooperation can create incentives for stability.

Trade agreements encourage commercial relationships.

Investment may support employment and technological development.

Tourism can create opportunities for personal contact.

Scientific cooperation can help address shared challenges.

These developments may strengthen relationships between countries.

Governments and businesses may become more interested in avoiding confrontation when they benefit from stable cooperation.

However, economic integration does not guarantee political peace.

Countries with substantial commercial relationships can still experience serious political disputes.

Economic benefits may also be distributed unevenly.

A partnership between large companies does not necessarily improve conditions for vulnerable communities.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict demonstrates this limitation.

Trade between Israel and Arab governments can expand while Palestinians continue to face restrictions, insecurity and unresolved political claims.

Economic cooperation may support peace.

It cannot substitute for agreements concerning sovereignty, security, political rights and the rule of law.

## 7\. Regional Security and the Iran Question

Regional security was an important factor behind the Abraham Accords.

Israel and several Gulf governments shared concerns about aspects of Iran's military capabilities and regional activities.

These overlapping interests encouraged strategic dialogue.

However, the participating Arab countries did not have identical relationships with Iran.

The UAE maintained economic and diplomatic contacts with Tehran.

Bahrain had its own security concerns.

Morocco's normalization decision was strongly connected to Western Sahara.

Sudan's decision reflected its political transition and international financial relationships.

The agreements therefore did not create one uniform military alliance.

The broader regional security environment remained complicated.

Conflicts involving Israel, Iran and armed groups in neighboring countries continued to create risks.

Maritime security, missile threats and the possibility of wider military escalation remained important concerns.

For lasting peace, regional governments must address security concerns without assuming that every political disagreement can be resolved through military deterrence.

Diplomatic communication, conflict prevention and credible security arrangements are also important.

The Abraham Accords may contribute to these efforts.

However, they are not a substitute for a comprehensive regional security framework.

## 8\. The Importance of International Law

International law provides an important framework for evaluating peace agreements and regional diplomacy.

The prohibition on attacks against civilians, the protection of hostages, the rules governing armed conflict and the right of peoples to self-determination remain relevant regardless of diplomatic normalization.

The International Court of Justice addressed the legal consequences of Israel's policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territory in its July 2024 advisory opinion.

The court concluded that Israel's continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful and identified obligations concerning ending that presence and respecting Palestinian self-determination.

Israel rejected the court's conclusions.

The advisory opinion is not a binding judgment between two states, but it carries substantial legal authority.

The broader legal framework also includes international humanitarian law and human rights obligations.

The Abraham Accords did not replace these principles.

Governments that establish diplomatic relations remain subject to applicable international legal obligations.

A durable regional peace requires more than political agreements between governments.

It also requires attention to legal accountability, civilian protection and the rights of affected populations.

## 9\. The Role of the United States

The United States played a central role in negotiating the Abraham Accords.

The Trump administration facilitated the original agreements and presented normalization as a major foreign policy achievement.

American diplomacy connected Israel and participating Arab governments through negotiations involving strategic and economic interests.

The process also intersected with proposed arms sales, sanctions policy and territorial recognition.

The Biden administration continued to support the agreements and pursued further normalization.

American efforts increasingly focused on the possibility of an agreement involving Saudi Arabia.

However, the war in Gaza complicated these discussions.

The United States remained influential because of its relationships with Israel, Gulf governments and other regional partners.

Yet American diplomatic influence has limits.

Washington can encourage negotiations and offer incentives.

It cannot guarantee that governments will accept agreements contrary to their political priorities.

Nor can it create lasting peace without the participation of parties directly involved in unresolved conflicts.

The future of the Abraham Accords therefore depends partly on American diplomacy, but it cannot be determined by Washington alone.

## 10\. Saudi Arabia and the Possibility of Expansion

Saudi Arabia remains one of the most significant countries outside the original Abraham Accords framework.

Its regional influence, economic position and religious importance make potential normalization with Israel especially consequential.

An agreement could expand diplomatic and economic cooperation across the region.

However, Saudi Arabia has maintained that Palestinian statehood is central to its position on normalization.

The war in Gaza reinforced the importance of this condition.

Negotiations also involve American security relationships and other strategic questions.

The Saudi case demonstrates that the approach used in 2020 cannot necessarily be repeated under identical conditions.

Different governments have different political priorities.

For Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian question remains an important element of any potential agreement.

This creates both a challenge and a possible diplomatic opportunity.

Future normalization discussions could become connected to more substantial commitments concerning Palestinian political rights.

Whether such an approach can succeed remains uncertain.

## 11\. The Future of Gaza

The future of Gaza is central to the prospects for regional peace.

The war caused extensive destruction and humanitarian suffering.

Reconstruction requires substantial financial resources, functioning institutions and secure access for humanitarian and commercial activity.

However, rebuilding infrastructure is only one part of the challenge.

Questions concerning political governance, security arrangements, disarmament, Israeli military control and Palestinian representation remain deeply contested.

Regional governments may be asked to contribute financial assistance or participate in diplomatic initiatives.

Countries associated with the Abraham Accords could potentially play a role.

However, reconstruction cannot be separated entirely from political questions.

Buildings can be rebuilt.

Hospitals and schools can be repaired.

But without durable security arrangements and legitimate political institutions, reconstruction remains vulnerable to renewed conflict.

The future of Gaza therefore illustrates the limits of economic and humanitarian solutions when fundamental political disputes remain unresolved.

## 12\. The West Bank and the Prospects for Palestinian Statehood

The West Bank remains another central issue.

Israeli settlements, restrictions on movement, political fragmentation and disputes concerning territorial control complicate the prospects for Palestinian statehood.

The Palestinian Authority exercises limited administrative authority in parts of the territory.

Israel retains extensive control over security, movement and significant areas of land.

The situation has been shaped by decades of negotiations, political decisions and developments on the ground.

The Abraham Accords did not resolve these questions.

The suspension of Israeli annexation proposals in 2020 was an important element of the UAE agreement.

However, it did not establish a permanent political settlement.

For a negotiated two-state solution to remain viable, questions concerning territory, settlements, security and political authority require direct attention.

Regional normalization may create diplomatic opportunities.

But those opportunities must be connected to concrete political developments if they are to contribute to a comprehensive settlement.

## 13\. Jerusalem and the Challenge of Competing Claims

Jerusalem remains one of the most sensitive questions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The city has profound religious significance for Jews, Muslims and Christians.

It is also central to competing national claims.

Israel considers Jerusalem its capital.

Palestinians seek East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state.

The city's status remains internationally contested.

Religious sites, historical connections and political authority make negotiations particularly difficult.

The Abraham Accords emphasized shared religious heritage through the figure of Abraham.

This symbolism was intended to encourage coexistence.

However, shared religious history does not resolve disputes concerning sovereignty and political rights.

A comprehensive peace process must address Jerusalem through arrangements that account for security, religious access and the competing claims of the parties.

Symbolic recognition of shared heritage may support dialogue.

It cannot replace negotiated political decisions.

## 14\. The Refugee Question

The Palestinian refugee question remains another unresolved element of the conflict.

Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced during the war surrounding Israel's establishment.

Further displacement occurred during and after the 1967 war.

Palestinian refugee communities developed across the Middle East and beyond.

The question of return, compensation and a final settlement remains politically contested.

Palestinians frequently emphasize the right of return and the historical consequences of displacement.

Israeli governments have generally opposed unrestricted return to Israel, citing concerns about national identity and demographic consequences.

Different peace proposals have considered combinations of return, compensation and resettlement.

No comprehensive agreement has been reached.

The Abraham Accords did not address the refugee question directly.

This omission reinforces the distinction between normalization and a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.

Lasting peace requires confronting historical grievances as well as present-day security concerns.

## 15\. Public Opinion and the Future of Normalization

The future of the Abraham Accords will depend partly on public attitudes.

Government agreements can establish diplomatic relationships.

However, public acceptance develops through a longer process.

People may evaluate normalization through their experiences, political beliefs and perceptions of regional events.

The war in Gaza intensified opposition to normalization in parts of the Arab world.

At the same time, existing diplomatic relationships demonstrated that governments could maintain official channels despite political pressure.

This creates an important distinction.

A diplomatic agreement may survive while public enthusiasm declines.

Economic cooperation may continue while cultural exchange becomes more difficult.

The durability of normalization therefore cannot be measured solely by whether embassies remain open.

It also depends on whether societies develop confidence in the benefits and legitimacy of the relationships.

Such confidence is difficult to build during periods of major violence.

A more stable political environment would provide better conditions for meaningful social exchange.

## 16\. The Role of Civil Society and Independent Journalism

Governments play a central role in negotiating diplomatic agreements.

However, civil society and independent journalism are also important to the wider peace process.

Journalists can examine whether political promises are implemented.

They can investigate the consequences of economic and security cooperation.

They can document the experiences of civilians affected by conflict.

They can also provide context that is often missing from political statements.

Civil society organizations may contribute through education, humanitarian work, dialogue and human rights monitoring.

However, such initiatives face challenges.

Political restrictions, security concerns and unequal access to resources can limit participation.

Independent journalism must also distinguish between reporting and advocacy.

The role of journalism is not to declare that an agreement has succeeded or failed based solely on political preference.

It is to examine evidence, question official claims and represent relevant perspectives accurately.

The Abraham Accords provide an important subject for this kind of reporting.

Their consequences involve governments, businesses and communities whose experiences may differ substantially.

## 17\. What Would a More Inclusive Peace Process Require?

A more comprehensive peace process would need to address issues beyond bilateral normalization.

Israeli security concerns are essential.

The October 7 attacks demonstrated the devastating consequences of violence against civilians and the importance of protecting communities from future attacks.

Palestinian political rights are equally central to any durable settlement.

Questions concerning self-determination, occupation, territorial control and political representation cannot be postponed indefinitely without consequences.

A more inclusive diplomatic framework would require meaningful participation by representatives of the affected populations.

It would also require attention to international law, humanitarian protection and credible mechanisms for implementing agreements.

Regional governments could contribute through diplomatic support, economic cooperation and security arrangements.

International actors could facilitate negotiations and provide guarantees where appropriate.

However, the effectiveness of such arrangements would depend on political commitments and accountability.

Peace cannot be sustained solely through declarations.

It requires institutions, implementation and the willingness of parties to address difficult disagreements.

## 18\. Lessons From Earlier Peace Agreements

The Abraham Accords can be considered alongside earlier Arab-Israeli peace agreements.

Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979.

Jordan followed in 1994.

Both agreements survived periods of regional conflict and political tension.

They demonstrate that formal diplomatic relationships can endure even when public attitudes remain complicated.

However, they also illustrate the limits of bilateral peace.

Neither agreement resolved the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Abraham Accords followed a similar pattern in some respects.

They established relationships between governments.

They created mechanisms for cooperation.

But they did not resolve every regional dispute.

The historical lesson is therefore not that normalization is meaningless.

Nor is it that normalization automatically produces comprehensive peace.

Rather, bilateral agreements can create important diplomatic stability while broader conflicts remain unresolved.

Their contribution to lasting peace depends on how they interact with those wider issues.

## 19\. Measuring Peace Beyond Diplomatic Success

The success of the Abraham Accords should be evaluated through several different measures.

Diplomatic recognition is one.

The establishment of embassies and functioning official relationships demonstrates institutional change.

Economic cooperation is another.

Trade, investment and commercial partnerships can be assessed through documented results.

Regional security is a third.

The ability of governments to communicate, prevent escalation and manage crises is important.

However, a comprehensive assessment must also consider civilian protection, political rights and the prospects for resolving unresolved conflicts.

Have the agreements contributed to a more stable region?

Have they created meaningful opportunities for dialogue?

Have they influenced policies affecting Palestinians?

Have they strengthened relationships between societies rather than only between governments?

These questions require careful evidence-based evaluation.

Some outcomes can be measured quantitatively.

Others require political, legal and historical analysis.

The Abraham Accords should neither be dismissed because they did not resolve every conflict nor celebrated as a comprehensive peace settlement they were never designed to provide.

Their achievements and limitations must be considered together.

## 20\. Can the Abraham Accords Become Part of a Broader Peace?

The Abraham Accords remain an important diplomatic framework.

They demonstrated that relationships between Israel and Arab governments could change.

They created institutions capable of supporting communication and cooperation.

They also revealed the political limits of normalization without a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian settlement.

The future may involve maintaining existing agreements, expanding normalization or connecting regional cooperation more directly to progress on Palestinian rights.

These possibilities are not mutually exclusive.

Governments could preserve diplomatic relationships while pursuing additional political commitments.

Economic cooperation could continue alongside efforts to address territorial disputes.

Regional security dialogue could be connected to wider conflict-prevention initiatives.

However, such developments are not guaranteed.

They depend on political leadership, public acceptance, regional security conditions and the willingness of governments to make difficult decisions.

The central challenge is to move beyond the idea that peace can be defined solely through relations between states.

Lasting peace must also be meaningful to the people whose lives are shaped by the conflicts that remain unresolved.

## Final Conclusion — Beyond the Agreements

The Abraham Accords marked an important turning point in Middle Eastern diplomacy.

The agreements established new relationships between Israel and participating Arab governments.

They created opportunities for trade, tourism, technological cooperation and official dialogue.

They challenged longstanding assumptions about the relationship between Arab-Israeli normalization and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Their achievements were significant.

However, the agreements also exposed important limitations.

They did not resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

They did not establish Palestinian statehood.

They did not eliminate regional security threats.

And they did not prevent the devastating violence that followed October 7, 2023.

The years after the signing demonstrated that diplomatic recognition can survive severe political pressure.

But they also showed that the existence of formal relationships does not guarantee wider peace.

For Israel, lasting peace involves security, recognition and protection from violence.

For Palestinians, it involves security, political rights, self-determination and an end to the conditions that deny them control over their future.

For Arab governments, it involves balancing national interests, regional stability and domestic political expectations.

For the international community, it requires diplomacy grounded in evidence, legal obligations and meaningful political participation.

The Abraham Accords may contribute to that process.

They have already demonstrated that diplomatic relationships can change.

Whether those changes become part of a broader and more durable peace will depend on what governments do with the opportunities they have created.

**A diplomatic agreement can open a door. It cannot, by itself, determine what lies beyond it.**

The ultimate measure of the Abraham Accords will not be the ceremony at which they were signed, the number of agreements announced or the value of commercial partnerships.

It will be whether the relationships they established help create conditions in which Israelis, Palestinians and their neighbors can live with greater security, political dignity and the prospect of a peaceful future.

---

## Sources and Further Reading

**Official Agreements and Diplomatic Documents**

1. **U.S. Department of State — The Abraham Accords (2020).**  
Original diplomatic documents, including the Abraham Accords Declaration and agreements involving Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan.  
[https://2017-2021.state.gov/the-abraham-accords/](https://2017-2021.state.gov/the-abraham-accords/?ref=beyondthelines.news)
2. **U.S. Government Publishing Office — The Abraham Accords Declaration (September 15, 2020).**  
Official record of the declaration signed during the White House ceremony.  
[https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-202000685/html/DCPD-202000685.htm](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-202000685/html/DCPD-202000685.htm?ref=beyondthelines.news)
3. **U.S. Department of State — Israel–Bahrain Declaration of Peace, Cooperation, and Constructive Diplomatic and Friendly Relations (September 15, 2020).**  
Original text documenting the initial normalization agreement between Bahrain and Israel.  
[https://2021-2025.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Bahrain\_Israel-Agreement-signed-FINAL-15-Sept-2020-508.pdf](https://2021-2025.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Bahrain%5FIsrael-Agreement-signed-FINAL-15-Sept-2020-508.pdf?ref=beyondthelines.news)

**Historical Background and the Palestinian Question**

1. **United Nations — The Arab Peace Initiative (March 28, 2002).**  
Original Arab League initiative outlining conditions for comprehensive peace and normalization with Israel.  
[https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-207494/](https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-207494/?ref=beyondthelines.news)
2. **International Court of Justice — Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem (July 19, 2024).**  
Advisory opinion addressing occupation, settlements and Palestinian self-determination.  
[https://www.icj-cij.org/case/186/advisory-opinions](https://www.icj-cij.org/case/186/advisory-opinions?ref=beyondthelines.news)

**Trade and Economic Cooperation**

1. **United Arab Emirates Ministry of Economy and Tourism — UAE–Israel Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement.**  
Official information on the bilateral trade agreement, which entered into force on April 1, 2023.  
[https://www.moet.gov.ae/en/cepa\_israel](https://www.moet.gov.ae/en/cepa%5Fisrael?ref=beyondthelines.news)
2. **Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs — Israel–UAE Bilateral Relations.**  
Diplomatic timeline documenting official visits, commercial agreements and institutional cooperation.  
[https://embassies.gov.il/dubai/en/the-consulate/bilateral-relations](https://embassies.gov.il/dubai/en/the-consulate/bilateral-relations?ref=beyondthelines.news)
3. **United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs — UAE President Receives Phone Call from Israel's Prime Minister (April 5, 2023).**  
Official statement concerning diplomatic relations, economic cooperation and regional stability.  
[https://www.mofa.gov.ae/en/mediahub/news/2023/4/5/05-04-2023-uae-israel](https://www.mofa.gov.ae/en/mediahub/news/2023/4/5/05-04-2023-uae-israel?ref=beyondthelines.news)

**Additional Research and Analysis**

1. **Carnegie Endowment for International Peace — The Abraham Accords After Gaza: A Change of Context (2025).**  
Analysis of the effects of the Gaza war on Arab-Israeli normalization and regional diplomacy.  
[https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/04/the-abraham-accords-after-gaza-a-change-of-context?center=global](https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/04/the-abraham-accords-after-gaza-a-change-of-context?center=global&ref=beyondthelines.news)
2. **UK House of Commons Library — Israel and the Abraham Accords in 2025: Five Years On.**  
Parliamentary research examining the agreements, their implementation and subsequent diplomatic developments.  
[https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/israel-and-the-abraham-accords-in-2025-five-years-on/](https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/israel-and-the-abraham-accords-in-2025-five-years-on/?ref=beyondthelines.news)

*Editorial note: Official government documents are used to establish the content of agreements and stated government positions. Legal findings, political interpretations and assessments of outcomes are distinguished from those official positions. Contemporary developments should be checked against dated reporting before publication.*