Abraham Accords at a Crossroads: Promise Unfulfilled in a Region Still Seeking Peace

The Elusive Dream of Middle East Transformation

When pens touched paper on the manicured White House lawn in September 2020, the atmosphere was electric with possibility. The Abraham Accords—a series of diplomatic agreements normalizing relations between Israel and several Arab states—were heralded as nothing short of revolutionary. Then-President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stood triumphant as representatives from the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain signed documents that would fundamentally alter the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East. In the months that followed, Morocco and Sudan joined this diplomatic venture, creating what many hoped would be a cascading effect of normalization across the Arab world. The agreements represented the first public recognition of Israel by Arab nations since Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994, breaking decades of regional isolation. Proponents painted visions of a transformed Middle East: bustling trade corridors between Tel Aviv and Dubai, interfaith tourism connecting Jerusalem to Manama, and a united front against shared regional threats. The diplomatic breakthrough promised to circumvent the long-stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process, suggesting that prosperity and normalization could precede—rather than follow—resolution of the Palestinian question. “This is the dawn of a new Middle East,” Netanyahu declared to applause from global leaders and business interests eager to capitalize on newly opened markets.

Economic Promises and Cultural Exchanges Take Root

In the immediate aftermath of the accords, tangible successes emerged that seemed to validate the optimistic rhetoric surrounding the agreements. Trade between Israel and its new Arab partners surged, with bilateral commerce between Israel and the UAE alone exceeding $2.5 billion in the first two years—a remarkable figure considering virtually no formal economic relationship existed previously. Direct flights connecting Tel Aviv with Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Manama, and Casablanca transformed once-unthinkable journeys into routine travel routes, carrying business delegations, tourists, and cultural ambassadors between formerly estranged nations. Israeli tech companies established regional headquarters in Dubai’s gleaming business districts, while Emirati sovereign wealth funds explored investment opportunities in Israel’s booming innovation sector. Beyond economics, cultural and educational exchanges blossomed: joint academic research programs were established between universities, museum exhibitions celebrated shared Abrahamic heritage, and interfaith dialogues brought together Jewish, Muslim, and Christian leaders. These people-to-people connections represented perhaps the most meaningful early achievements of the accords, creating spaces for genuine understanding across societies that had been conditioned for generations to view each other with suspicion or outright hostility. The groundbreaking Abraham Investment Fund—a $3 billion initiative aimed at private sector projects across the participating countries—symbolized the economic potential of this new alignment, promising shared prosperity as the foundation for lasting peace.

Palestinian Disillusionment and Regional Complications Intensify

Despite the celebratory atmosphere surrounding these unprecedented diplomatic achievements, Palestinian leaders and many ordinary Palestinians viewed the Abraham Accords with profound disappointment and a sense of abandonment. The agreements effectively shattered the decades-old Arab consensus that normalization with Israel would come only after the establishment of a Palestinian state—a position formalized in the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas condemned the accords as “a stab in the back of the Palestinian cause,” while Hamas officials described them as “a betrayal.” This sentiment resonated across Palestinian society, where the agreements were widely perceived as undermining their negotiating position by delivering to Israel the regional recognition it had long sought without requiring concessions on settlements, occupation, or statehood. The timing of the accords coincided with the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and intensified tensions in East Jerusalem, particularly around Sheikh Jarrah and the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound. These developments reinforced Palestinian skepticism about the accords’ potential to deliver meaningful improvements to their daily lives or political aspirations. Meanwhile, regional complications continued to challenge the agreements’ promise of stability. Iran maintained its hostile posture toward both Israel and the Gulf states engaged in normalization, while proxy conflicts in Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon demonstrated the persistent fault lines in Middle Eastern geopolitics. The accords’ framers had hoped that a united front of moderate Arab states and Israel might effectively contain Iranian influence, but Tehran’s continued regional activities and nuclear program advancements suggested limitations to this strategy.

The Gaza War Exposes Fragility of Diplomatic Breakthrough

The October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on southern Israel and the subsequent devastating Israeli military operation in Gaza delivered a profound shock to the Abraham Accords framework, exposing its fundamental vulnerability: peace agreements between governments do not necessarily reflect or transform public sentiment. As civilian casualties mounted in Gaza and horrific images flooded social media platforms across the Arab world, popular pressure intensified on the governments that had normalized relations with Israel. While official diplomatic channels remained open, practical cooperation slowed dramatically. The UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco found themselves in the uncomfortable position of maintaining formal ties with Israel while their populations expressed overwhelming solidarity with Palestinians. Public demonstrations—rare in countries with tight restrictions on political expression—erupted in Morocco, while social media campaigns in the Gulf called for boycotts of Israeli products and companies doing business with Israel. Tourism between Israel and its new Arab partners plummeted, business deals were quietly shelved, and cultural exchanges were postponed indefinitely. The Abraham Accords had been premised on the notion that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be sidelined or managed while broader regional integration progressed. The Gaza war shattered this assumption, demonstrating that the conflict’s emotional resonance throughout the Arab and Muslim world remains a powerful force that cannot be diplomatically circumvented. Saudi Arabia, which had been carefully considering normalization with Israel before October 7, publicly froze discussions, insisting that any future diplomatic recognition would require meaningful progress toward Palestinian statehood—effectively reverting to the position outlined in the Arab Peace Initiative two decades earlier.

Diplomacy in the Shadow of Humanitarian Crisis and Political Polarization

As the humanitarian situation in Gaza deteriorated and the conflict threatened to expand into a wider regional conflagration involving Hezbollah in Lebanon and Houthi forces in Yemen, the limitations of the Abraham Accords’ peace-building capabilities became increasingly apparent. The agreements had created valuable diplomatic channels between Israel and key Arab states, but these proved insufficient to broker an immediate ceasefire or coordinate large-scale humanitarian assistance to Gaza’s civilian population. American efforts to leverage the accords’ framework to deescalate tensions achieved only limited success, highlighting how the agreements—while historic—had not fundamentally altered the region’s core security dynamics. Within Israel itself, the political landscape grew increasingly polarized between those advocating expanded military operations and those calling for diplomatic solutions and humanitarian considerations. This internal division complicated Israel’s ability to present coherent policies to its Arab partners, who themselves faced mounting domestic pressure regarding their continued diplomatic engagement with Israel during the Gaza conflict. International human rights organizations documented alleged violations of international humanitarian law by both Hamas and Israeli forces, creating additional diplomatic complications for Abraham Accords signatories attempting to balance multiple strategic interests. The conflict revealed a stark reality: while formal diplomatic agreements represent important progress, they cannot substitute for addressing underlying historical grievances, territorial disputes, and competing national narratives. The people-to-people connections that had begun to flourish in the accords’ early stages—arguably their most transformative potential—became casualties of renewed hostilities, as civilian populations on all sides retreated to familiar positions of mutual suspicion and antagonism.

Uncertain Future: Between Resilience and Reimagination

As the dust settles on the most serious challenge to the Abraham Accords since their inception, both proponents and critics are reassessing their significance and durability. The agreements have not collapsed—a testament to the genuine strategic interests that brought them into being—but neither have they transformed the Middle East into the region of peace and prosperity their architects envisioned. Rather than viewing the accords as either an unqualified success or a comprehensive failure, a more nuanced evaluation suggests they represent an important but incomplete step in the complex journey toward regional stability. The most constructive path forward likely involves acknowledging both the agreements’ valuable achievements and their evident limitations. The economic partnerships, security coordination, and interpersonal connections established through the accords provide a foundation worth preserving. Simultaneously, the Gaza war’s impact demonstrates that sustainable regional peace cannot indefinitely defer addressing Palestinian national aspirations. The future of the Abraham Accords may depend on their evolution from agreements focused primarily on bilateral normalization to a more comprehensive framework that meaningfully incorporates Palestinian participation and prospects for statehood. International stakeholders, particularly the United States, face the challenge of revitalizing diplomatic momentum while respecting the complicated domestic politics in each signatory nation. The agreements’ resilience through severe crisis indicates their underlying strategic logic remains compelling, but their inability to prevent or rapidly resolve conflict underscores the need for complementary diplomatic initiatives addressing the region’s most entrenched disputes. As one senior diplomat involved in the original negotiations observed, “The Abraham Accords were never meant to be the finish line—they were meant to be the starting point for a new regional conversation.” Whether that conversation can evolve to address the fundamental questions that October 7 and its aftermath have thrust back to the forefront of Middle Eastern geopolitics will determine whether history remembers the accords as a transformative breakthrough or merely another well-intentioned diplomatic initiative that failed to deliver lasting peace.