Demand to expand the Abraham Accords is premature

On the face of it, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with US President Donald Trump’s wish — more precisely, his demand — for more Middle Eastern countries to join the Abraham Accords. After all, who would not like to see countries that lack diplomatic relations normalize ties and embark on a new path of collaboration and cooperation for the benefit of their peoples and societies? In international affairs, there is rarely any advantage in refusing to normalize relations with other countries.

Yet this specific "request" should be considered in its broader context rather than in isolation and, consequently, be politely declined until the necessary conditions are in place.

The principles and values of the Abraham Accords are timeless and difficult to dispute. Who would oppose a document that underlines the importance of "maintaining and strengthening peace in the Middle East and around the world based on mutual understanding and coexistence, as well as respect for human dignity and freedom, including religious freedom?" Such aspirations are appealing to anyone who wishes to see the region move beyond war and conflict toward peace, coexistence and reconciliation.

Moreover, it cannot be denied that the original Abraham Accords, masterminded during the first Trump administration, produced notable successes in trade, economic cooperation, scientific collaboration and security relations between Israel and three Arab countries: the UAE, Bahrain and Morocco. Sudan signed the initial declaration but never ratified it.

Despite their noble intentions, when it came to the Palestinian issue, the accords paid little more than lip service

Yossi Mekelberg

So far, so good. However, there is an elephant in the room, a very large one, that should have been impossible to ignore. Despite their beautiful words and noble intentions, when it came to the Palestinian issue, the accords paid little more than lip service. Significantly, it is not mentioned in the bilateral agreements, only in the overarching declaration itself.

Six years on, the Palestinian issue appears further from resolution than ever, with little reason for optimism in the foreseeable future. What has been achieved through the Abraham Accords to advance the Palestinians’ right to self-determination and independent statehood or to end their decades-long occupation? Where is the human dignity in remaining stateless, in living for generations in refugee camps scattered across the region or in being repeatedly displaced in Gaza after tens of thousands have been killed since the war that began in October 2023? And where is the freedom for Palestinians living in the West Bank, where they continue to face military occupation and frequent attacks by settlers who act with complete impunity?

The Abraham Accords could have been an almost unparalleled success in overcoming decades of hostility had they not effectively sidelined the need for a fair and just solution between Israelis and Palestinians.

When I first heard about the accords, alarm bells rang loudly. Knowing the intentions of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has consistently opposed the creation of a Palestinian state, I feared that this agreement would only serve as a tool enabling him to demonstrate to his electorate that Israel could build a circle of friendly regional partners without making any meaningful concessions on the Palestinian question. Unfortunately, that fear has largely become reality.

Some argue that the accords helped prevent the annexation of parts of the West Bank, which was openly discussed at the time by the Israeli government. However, this is not an argument that should be taken too seriously. One should not be rewarded for refraining from committing an unlawful act; that should be the minimum expectation. Furthermore, six years later, Israel has, for all practical purposes, extended its control over much of the occupied territory, even without a formal declaration of annexation.

A more optimistic interpretation, which I did not share even then, was that an Israel accepted by its neighbors would feel more secure and confident and therefore become more flexible in negotiations with the Palestinians. Yet such an outcome would have required a courageous leadership committed to peace and willing to make difficult compromises. Neither quality has characterized Netanyahu or the governments he has led over the years.

This brings me to the conclusion that the foundation for future normalization with Israel should remain the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, an idea conceived in Saudi Arabia and subsequently endorsed by the Arab League through the Beirut Declaration. The initiative conditions full normalization with Israel on the achievement of a peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians that is acceptable to both parties.

The Abraham Accords have not made the region significantly safer, including for Israel itself. And possibly the opposite

Yossi Mekelberg

So, the problem is not the Abraham Accords themselves. Rather, it is the lesson that Netanyahu and many of his political allies appear to have drawn from them: that they can be used to circumvent the Palestinian issue rather than help resolve it.

The irony is that Israel is behaving as if peace with the Palestinians is a favor to either the Palestinians or the international community — and it is not. It is a fundamental Israeli interest. It is essential for Israel’s long-term security and prosperity. Viewing the end of occupation and the recognition of Palestinian rights as concessions granted to others reflects a profoundly distorted understanding of the situation.

Even if one acknowledges, as I do, the Abraham Accords’ achievements in generating billions of dollars in trade, increasing tourism through daily flights and fostering various forms of cooperation, they have not made the region significantly safer, including for Israel itself. And possibly the opposite.

Across the Middle East, and indeed far beyond it, vast numbers of people remain deeply troubled by what they see as the daily injustices experienced by Palestinians. The continuing expansion of settlements and dispossession in the West Bank is making the prospect of a two-state solution increasingly remote, as are the humanitarian conditions in Gaza, which remain catastrophic. Then there is the unresolved plight of Palestinian refugees throughout the region, which remains another source of instability and grievance.

Moreover, the absence of a political solution continues to fuel radicalization and extremism. It provides groups such as Hezbollah and states such as Iran with a pretext, however unconvincing, for their destabilizing behavior and regional ambitions. When Trump insists that more countries join the normalization process, those that resist are not necessarily rejecting the principle of normalization or denying its potential benefits. Rather, they are choosing to forgo the immediate rewards of diplomatic and economic engagement until the Palestinian issue is addressed as part of a broader and more comprehensive regional settlement. Such a settlement would need to establish a new economic, social and security architecture for the Middle East.

And in the long run, such an approach would also serve the interests of the US by helping it regain some of the credibility required to act as an honest broker trusted by all sides.

• Yossi Mekelberg is a professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House.

X: @YMekelberg