The Abraham Accords: A Regional Realignment or Betrayal of the Palestinian Cause?

In August 2020, a groundbreaking announcement changed the dynamics of Middle Eastern geopolitics — the signing of the Abraham Accords, a series of agreements normalizing diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab nations. While the accords were framed as a step toward peace and regional cooperation, they also sparked a storm of controversy, especially among Palestinians and within the broader Arab public. These agreements were not born out of a collective vision for a lasting regional peace or justice for the Palestinian people. Rather, each country involved had distinct national interests and motivations that guided their decision to engage with Israel.

For instance, Morocco saw the agreement as an opportunity to secure U.S. recognition of its sovereignty over Western Sahara, a long-disputed territory. Sudan, facing severe economic hardships and international isolation, hoped that normalizing relations with Israel would lead to the lifting of U.S. sanctions and removal from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list. Meanwhile, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) were more focused on economic benefits and security partnerships. Their aim was to open new trade channels, promote tourism, and strengthen technological and defense cooperation — particularly in countering Iran’s influence in the region.

Despite the different motivations, there was a shared understanding among the signatories: none of them involved Palestine in their negotiations. The deals were struck without consulting or addressing Palestinian demands, especially the long-standing call for an end to the Israeli occupation and recognition of Palestinian statehood. The Palestinian Authority and various Arab civil society groups quickly condemned these agreements as a betrayal of the Palestinian cause. Critics argue that the normalization of relations with Israel, without resolving the Palestinian issue, gives Tel Aviv a free pass to continue its settlement expansions and avoid serious peace negotiations.

From the Palestinian perspective, the Abraham Accords represent an intentional effort to weaken their national struggle. The fear is that by building stronger ties with Arab governments — economically, militarily, and diplomatically — Israel will gain greater regional legitimacy without making any meaningful concessions. This approach, Palestinians argue, sidelines their plight and reduces the incentive for Israel to pursue a two-state solution or acknowledge the injustices faced by millions of Palestinians living under occupation or in exile.

A deeper analysis reveals that the threat posed by Iran was a major unifying factor behind the Accords. Countries like the UAE and Bahrain view Iran as a destabilizing force in the region, particularly due to its support for groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis, and its growing influence in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. In this context, Israel is seen not as a former enemy, but as a strategic ally capable of countering Iranian power. Thus, shared security concerns played a crucial role in bringing former adversaries together under the umbrella of normalization.

Yet, public opinion across the Arab world paints a different picture. A comprehensive survey conducted after the signing of the Accords found that 88% of Arab respondents opposed normalizing ties with Israel. This overwhelming disapproval reflects a deep-rooted solidarity with the Palestinian people and a sense of betrayal by their governments. Many Arabs believe that any peace agreement with Israel should first involve a just solution for Palestinians, including the end of occupation and the establishment of a sovereign state with East Jerusalem as its capital.

On the other hand, there is no denying that the Abraham Accords have brought tangible economic and diplomatic gains. Trade between Israel and the UAE, for instance, has skyrocketed, reaching billions of dollars in volume. Flights now operate directly between Tel Aviv and Gulf cities, and both nations have opened embassies. Collaborative projects in technology, agriculture, healthcare, and defense are on the rise. These developments signify a major shift in how some Arab countries are choosing to engage with Israel — no longer as an adversary, but as a potential partner for progress.

However, these benefits come with a price. By isolating the Palestinian issue from broader regional diplomacy, the Accords risk perpetuating injustice rather than solving it. The normalization of relations without securing Palestinian rights has raised ethical and moral questions, not just in Palestine, but across the Arab and Muslim world. If peace in the Middle East is to be genuine and sustainable, many argue it must be built on justice, mutual respect, and the recognition of Palestinian aspirations.

In conclusion, the Abraham Accords reflect a complex web of national interests, regional rivalries, and shifting alliances. While they have opened new doors for economic cooperation and regional diplomacy, they have also highlighted deep divisions within the Arab world regarding how to approach the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As Israel continues to strengthen its ties with Arab governments, the question remains: Can there be true peace in the region without justice for Palestine?