Reflecting on Five Years of the Abraham Accords
Just recently, we marked the fifth anniversary of the signing of the Abraham Accords. This moment is, well, significant; it represented a major diplomatic shift that challenged longstanding perspectives on the Arab-Israeli conflict. The goal was to reshape the Middle East, prioritizing practical approaches over extremism and highlighting the notion that peace can indeed be beneficial.
In many respects, it’s been a success. However, as we look forward, especially with France and Saudi Arabia advocating for a reassessment that acknowledges Palestinian statehood, we find ourselves at a pivotal crossroads.
Many Arab nations can seek partnerships with Israel for trade, security, and technology but seem to remain quiet while the international community criticizes the Jewish state.
On September 15, 2020, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain officially ended their boycott of Israel, establishing open diplomatic ties. Shortly after, Morocco joined in. This led to embassies opening, flights commencing between Tel Aviv and Dubai, and, overall, a surprising shift in the Middle Eastern landscape.
Even in the wake of the tragic events of October 7 and the subsequent widespread conflict, the ties have largely held. Israeli tourists still travel to Abu Dhabi and Manama, business engagements continue, and flights remain regular. It’s interesting, really; these Arab nations are finding substantial economic gains through trade, technology, and innovation with Israel.
Non-relational Security
According to the Abraham Accord Peace Institute, bilateral trade between Israel and the UAE hit $3 billion in 2023. In Morocco, Israeli investments are burgeoning in sectors like agriculture, water management, and cybersecurity. Peace is showing tangible economic benefits, fostering new avenues for prosperity across the region.
Moreover, Israel has actively worked to mitigate local threats, taking on proxies like Iran in Gaza, Syria, and Lebanon. Its strategic strikes, supported by the US, have restrained Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. By engaging directly with Houthi forces, Israel is maintaining stability in crucial transport lanes. That’s beneficial for all involved.
Yet, there’s a twist: Israel is being warned by some nations benefiting from this new order about its actions. Messages come through to exercise restraint regarding Hamas in Gaza, not to expand sovereignty in certain areas, and to refrain from reoccupying regions previously evacuated. It’s puzzling, perhaps concerning; the list of stipulations appears to keep expanding.
This isn’t how genuine allies operate. It feels more like a stance of entities that want the perks of peace but shy away from the responsibilities that come with it.
A Test for the United Nations
As the UN General Assembly gathers, it often brings to light discrepancies. There’s growing international pressure for one-sided recognition of a Palestinian state. Such a move would be celebrated by Hamas, a group known for its hostility towards Israel.
The underlying message is alarming: violence can yield political recognition.
If the Abraham Accords are meant to represent more than just easy commercial benefits and one-sided security assurances, then the involved Muslim states need to stand firm. The same governments that sent representatives to Israel to negotiate should also reject declarations that reward violence and circumvent meaningful negotiations.
This shouldn’t be too much to ask. A firm stance against measures that convert atrocities into political leverage is essential. Silence in the face of the actions of Hamas, which hides behind civilians while inflicting violence on Israeli families, is unacceptable.
Essential Obligations in Partnerships
Partnerships are inherently two-sided. Instead of simply demanding “control” during moments of conflict, there needs to be collaborative action to dismantle the sources of fear. Entities like Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis pose significant threats to the entire region, and Israel has taken strides to confront these challenges head-on.
Over the past six months, nations involved in the Abraham Accords have begun redefining what cooperation can look like in the Middle East, basing it on shared interests instead of deep-rooted grievances. Yet, Israel continues to receive messages from its allies about its duty to protect itself.
This situation isn’t sustainable. It’s, frankly, not even ethical.
If Arab countries can benefit from Israel’s markets, security expertise, and military support, they shouldn’t remain silent while the broader international framework targets Israel. It’s clear the Abraham Accords offer a promising path forward. Five years in, perhaps now is the time to clarify what true partnership entails. Starting with a firm stance at the United Nations, rejecting the notion of rewarding terror and standing up for integrity in international discussions seems like a good place to begin.
