What were the main diplomatic breakthroughs of the Abraham Accords compared to Camp David and Oslo?
Executive summary
The Abraham Accords’ principal breakthrough was formal normalization between Israel and multiple Arab states—UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and later entrants—after a long pause since Egypt and Jordan , shifting the focus from Palestinian final-status talks to regional state-to-state ties and security/economic cooperation [1]. By contrast, Camp David produced a bilateral peace treaty between Israel and Egypt centered on territorial withdrawal and a framework for Palestinian autonomy, while Oslo (1993–99) created a direct Israeli–PLO negotiation track and established the Palestinian Authority as an interim self-rule body intended to lead to a final-status agreement [2] [3] [4].
1. A different political aim: normalization over resolution
The Abraham Accords prioritized normalization of diplomatic, economic and security relations between Israel and Arab states that had not been in open war with it, rather than solving the Israeli–Palestinian final status questions; proponents touted trade, intelligence sharing and regional anti‑Iran alignments as core goals [1] [5]. Camp David, by contrast, was explicitly a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt that addressed territory and mechanisms for Palestinian autonomy as a secondary framework item [4]. Oslo’s declared purpose was to create a negotiated path to a permanent settlement by establishing interim arrangements and direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) [3] [2].
2. Parties, inclusions and exclusions: who sat at the table
The Abraham Accords linked Israel with several Arab and Muslim-majority states without requiring Palestinian participation—an outward enlargement of Israel’s regional diplomacy that deliberately bypassed Palestinian leadership as a precondition [1]. Camp David was a U.S.-mediated summit between Israel and Egypt, and its framework touched on Palestinian issues but without PLO participation, which later generated regional criticism [4]. Oslo was unique in putting Israel and the PLO into a bilateral process, creating institutions—most notably the Palestinian Authority—meant to implement self-rule in the territories [2] [3].
3. Tangible deliverables: treaties, institutions and timelines
Camp David resulted in concrete treaty terms—Egypt’s recognition of Israel and Israeli withdrawal from Sinai—anchored by formal legal instruments negotiated under U.S. auspices [4]. Oslo produced a series of interim agreements, created the Palestinian Authority and set a five‑year horizon for final-status talks—an institutionalized but open-ended process [2] [3]. The Abraham Accords delivered formal diplomatic recognition, embassies, and rapid bilateral deals on commerce, aviation and security cooperation rather than a timetable for resolving the core conflict with the Palestinians [1] [6].
4. Security logic: bilateral defense ties vs. regional balancing
A central driver behind the Abraham Accords was shared concern about Iran and the desire for pragmatic security and intelligence cooperation among Israel and Gulf partners—this realpolitik alignment helped make normalization politically feasible [1] [5]. Camp David’s security calculus was country-specific: restoring Egyptian sovereignty over Sinai and creating a durable Israel–Egypt peace to remove Egypt from the Arab-Israeli battlefield [4]. Oslo sought security arrangements as part of phased Palestinian self-rule but was hampered by asymmetries of power and enforcement challenges [3] [7].
5. Legacies and limits: differing durability and criticisms
Camp David created a durable bilateral peace between Israel and Egypt but was criticized for sidelining a comprehensive Arab consensus and Palestinian rights—some UN bodies later rejected aspects viewed as incomplete on Palestinian issues [4]. Oslo established frameworks and institutions but failed to produce a final status settlement and left unresolved core grievances, contributing to cycles of violence and political collapse of the process [2] [3] [7]. The Abraham Accords expanded Israel’s regional integration quickly, but critics and subsequent reporting note strains: public Arab opinion is often hostile, and security/economic ties have shown vulnerabilities amid later conflicts, with some cooperation cooling after Gaza escalations [6] [1].
6. Competing perspectives and what’s not in the record
Analysts like those at the Marshall Center argue the Accords could create regional pressure for a revived two‑state push; others see them as a transactional, security-first pivot that reduces incentives to resolve the Palestinian question [5] [1]. Available sources do not mention long-term, binding guarantees within the Accords analogous to Camp David’s treaty mechanisms nor do they record a negotiated timetable to resolve Palestinian final-status issues within the Abraham framework [1] [6]. Sources also show public opinion and conflict shocks can quickly alter the Accords’ momentum [6].
In sum, the Abraham Accords’ breakthrough was procedural and strategic: normalizing Arab‑Israeli relations broadly and rapidly on security and economic grounds, not delivering a negotiated settlement to the Israeli–Palestinian core issues that Camp David and Oslo attempted—successfully in the case of Egypt only, institutionally in the case of Oslo, but with long-term shortcomings in both [4] [2] [1].