The Abraham Accords are a series of diplomatic agreements initiated in 2020 between Israel and several Arab or Muslim-majority countries, aimed at normalizing relations and fostering cooperation in various areas, including trade, technology, and security. These agreements mark a major shift in Middle Eastern geopolitics, breaking from the long-standing Arab consensus that normalization with Israel should be contingent upon a resolution of the Palestinian issue.
1. Origin and Naming
The accords are named after Abraham (peace be upon him), a patriarchal figure revered by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, symbolizing shared roots and an aspiration for interfaith unity. The term was coined to promote the idea of reconciliation among the descendants of Abraham — Jews and Arabs.
- Announcement Date: August 13, 2020
- Broker: United States (Trump Administration)
- Key Figures:
- Donald Trump (then U.S. President)
- Benjamin Netanyahu (then Israeli Prime Minister)
- Mohammed bin Zayed (Crown Prince of the UAE)
- Bahraini King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa
- Signed at: White House, September 15, 2020
2. Countries Involved (Initial and Later Signatories)
A. United Arab Emirates (UAE) – August 13, 2020
- First Gulf country to normalize relations with Israel.
- Motivated by:
- Shared concerns about Iran
- Access to U.S. military technology (e.g., F-35 jets)
- Economic and technological cooperation
B. Bahrain – September 11, 2020
- Quickly followed the UAE.
- Highlighted a regional shift in Gulf policy toward Israel.
C. Sudan – October 23, 2020
- Agreed to normalize ties with Israel in return for removal from U.S. State Sponsors of Terrorism list.
- Political transition in Sudan made the agreement controversial domestically.
D. Morocco – December 10, 2020
- In exchange, the U.S. recognized Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara.
- Morocco re-established diplomatic relations, having previously closed Israel’s liaison office during the Second Intifada.
3. Goals and Provisions
The Abraham Accords promote:
- Establishment of embassies
- Direct flights
- Bilateral agreements in tourism, technology, agriculture, energy, and defense
- Interfaith dialogue and cultural exchange
Importantly, the accords do not resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, although they often include language supporting a two-state solution.
4. Strategic and Political Motivations
For Arab States:
- Security alignment with Israel against Iran
- Access to Israeli technology
- Closer relations with the United States
- Economic diversification (esp. UAE and Bahrain)
For Israel:
- Diplomatic legitimacy in the Arab world
- Economic benefits
- Breaking regional isolation
For the U.S. (under Trump):
- Major foreign policy achievement
- Aimed at reshaping the Middle East without relying on Palestinian statehood
- Strengthened U.S. alliance networks
5. Reactions
Positive:
- Welcomed by Western powers and some Arab governments
- Seen as a step toward peace through integration rather than resistance
Negative:
- Palestinian Authority and Hamas condemned the accords as a betrayal
- Seen as undermining the Arab Peace Initiative (2002), which conditioned normalization on Palestinian statehood
- Iran and Turkey also criticized the agreements
6. Impacts and Developments
- Trade and tourism began between Israel and the UAE, including visa-free travel
- Defense cooperation (e.g., UAE-Israel drone and cyber collaboration)
- Cultural exchanges, such as interfaith summits
- Talks about further normalization with countries like Saudi Arabia, although as of 2025, those have been delayed due to ongoing regional tensions, especially over Gaza and renewed Israeli military actions.
7. Future Outlook
- The Biden Administration has continued to support the accords but with less emphasis on spectacle.
- Potential normalization with Saudi Arabia remains under discussion, though public opinion and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are significant hurdles.
- The accords are part of a realignment where Arab-Israeli ties may deepen, even as conflict with Palestinians continues.
8. Impact on the Palestinian Cause
The Abraham Accords have had a significant and controversial impact on the Palestinian cause, both politically and diplomatically. While the accords were promoted as a step toward regional peace, many analysts and Palestinians see them as a major setback for efforts to achieve Palestinian statehood and end Israeli occupation.
Here is a detailed analysis of the impact:
A. Undermining the Arab Peace Initiative
The Arab Peace Initiative (2002), backed by the Arab League, offered Israel full normalization only if it:
- Withdrew from all occupied Arab territories (including the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem)
- Allowed for the creation of a Palestinian state
- Agreed to a just solution for Palestinian refugees
By normalizing ties without these conditions, the Abraham Accords:
- Weakened the leverage the Arab world had over Israel
- Signaled that normalization is no longer contingent on resolving the Palestinian issue
B. Diplomatic Isolation of the Palestinians
- The Accords marginalized the Palestinian leadership, which was not consulted during negotiations.
- The Palestinian Authority (PA) called the agreements a “stab in the back.”
- Hamas and other resistance factions used the Accords to rally support, accusing Arab governments of betrayal.
- The PA lost traditional Arab diplomatic support, as key countries like the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco shifted toward bilateral ties with Israel.
C. Shift in Regional Priorities
- The Accords highlighted a shift in Arab priorities from Palestine to:
- Iran containment
- Economic diversification
- Technology and security cooperation
- This shift undermines the centrality of the Palestinian issue in Arab political discourse.
D. Emboldening of Israeli Policies
With normalization achieved:
- Israel faced less pressure to make concessions to Palestinians.
- The Accords gave political cover to Israel to:
- Continue settlement expansion
- Maintain the status quo in Jerusalem
- Avoid resuming meaningful peace negotiations
Israel’s annexation plans in the West Bank were “suspended” as part of the UAE deal, but settlement growth has continued.
E. Palestinian Public Sentiment
- Widespread anger and disillusionment among Palestinians, who see normalization as legitimizing occupation.
- Some Palestinians feared “normalization fatigue” — where the world moves on without solving their decades-long struggle.
- Others began re-evaluating strategies, with growing calls for:
- Grassroots mobilization
- Renewed armed resistance (especially from Hamas and Islamic Jihad)
- International legal pressure (e.g., ICC, UN forums)
F. Widening Internal Divisions
- The PA’s moderate diplomacy was undermined while Hamas positioned itself as the true defender of Palestinian rights.
- The divide between Fatah (PA) and Hamas widened, as the PA struggled to respond effectively to the changing regional dynamics.
G. Missed Opportunities?
Some argue that Palestinians could have:
- Engaged with the Accords to demand benefits or guarantees
- Used new diplomatic channels to push for rights
But the Palestinian consensus viewed the Accords as a betrayal that rewarded Israel without ending occupation.
H. Gaza War (2021) and Beyond
- The outbreak of the Gaza war in May 2021 shortly after the accords tested the agreements.
- Despite Israeli airstrikes in Gaza, the UAE and Bahrain did not withdraw from the Accords, showing their durability but also indifference to Palestinian suffering in the eyes of critics.
J. Current Implications (as of 2025)
- The recent collapse of the Assad regime and intensifying Indo-Pak tensions have overshadowed Palestinian issues in the global arena.
- The Gaza crisis of 2024–2025, with thousands killed, has revived Arab street anger but has not reversed normalization.
- The Palestinian cause remains alive among the masses, but weaker in formal Arab diplomacy.
The Abraham Accords represent a strategic shift in the Middle East. While they bring benefits to the signatory countries and Israel, they have:
- Weakened Palestinian diplomatic standing
- Reduced pressure on Israel for a two-state solution
- Deepened Arab disunity over the future of Palestine
The long-term outcome depends on whether Palestinians can redefine their strategy, build new alliances, and reclaim moral and political urgency in a region moving away from their cause.
9. Abraham Accords Contradict Palestinian Cause
The ongoing genocide or mass atrocities in Gaza starkly contradict both the spirit and stated goals of the Abraham Accords. While the Accords are framed as a step toward peace, coexistence, and regional cooperation, the ongoing devastation in Gaza reveals deep contradictions and raises serious ethical, political, and strategic questions about the viability and moral standing of these agreements.
A. Contradiction of Core Principles
The Abraham Accords emphasized:
- Peaceful resolution of conflicts
- Mutual respect and coexistence
- Interfaith and intercultural harmony
Yet, Israel’s military campaigns in Gaza — which have involved massive civilian casualties, destruction of infrastructure, and possible violations of international law — have:
- Shattered any perception of peaceful intent
- Undermined trust among Arab populations
- Contradicted the rhetoric of “shared prosperity” and “dignity for all peoples” found in the Accords’ official texts
B. Undermining the Credibility of Arab Signatories
The UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan normalized ties with Israel partly under the assumption that Israel would:
- Refrain from provocative military actions
- Engage in de-escalation
- Possibly offer concessions on the Palestinian issue
Instead, these countries now face:
- Public backlash for being seen as complicit or indifferent
- Diplomatic embarrassment, as their agreements with Israel failed to prevent the worst humanitarian crisis in Gaza since 1948
Some governments have condemned the violence, but none have suspended or revoked their ties — creating a moral and political disconnect.
C. Alienation of Arab Public Opinion
While the elites and governments may still uphold the Abraham Accords, the Arab public has largely turned against them in light of Gaza. Consequences include:
- Protests and boycotts against normalization
- Growing sentiment that economic and political normalization without justice is betrayal
- Pressure on governments to re-evaluate or suspend ties with Israel
This popular discontent undermines the sustainability of the Accords in the long run.
D. Diplomatic and Strategic Failures
The Abraham Accords were promoted as a new security architecture that could:
- Contain Iran
- Stabilize the region
- Foster economic integration
But the Gaza war has:
- Destabilized the region (with risks of wider conflict involving Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iran)
- Damaged the image of Israel as a reliable, peace-seeking partner
- Exposed the limits of U.S.-backed normalization as a path to stability
Rather than reducing conflict, the Accords now appear to many as having enabled impunity by removing consequences for Israel’s actions.
E. Moral and Legal Implications
If the international community increasingly recognizes Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide or crimes against humanity, then:
- Continued normalization becomes morally indefensible
- Signatories may face international and domestic pressure to suspend or cancel their agreements
- The entire narrative of the Accords promoting human dignity and peace collapses
F. What the Contradiction Reveals
The contradiction between genocide in Gaza and the Abraham Accords exposes:
- The fragility of peace without justice
- The failure of top-down diplomacy that ignores Palestinian rights
- The reality that true normalization is impossible while millions of Palestinians live under siege, occupation, or exile
Conclusion
The Abraham Accords are in direct moral and political contradiction with the realities in Gaza. The continued mass killing of civilians, destruction of medical infrastructure, and disregard for Palestinian life turn the Accords into little more than paper diplomacy — disconnected from the urgent human crisis at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Unless regional and global actors confront this contradiction honestly, the Accords will be remembered not as a breakthrough for peace, but as a deal that normalized occupation and enabled catastrophe.
Word Count: 1739 words
