Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How did the Abraham Accords, brokered in part by Jared Kushner, impact Israel's relations with Arab states?
Executive summary
The Abraham Accords—signed in 2020 and brokered by the Trump administration with heavy involvement from senior adviser Jared Kushner—normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states (the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan) and opened new economic, diplomatic and limited security channels between them [1][2]. The accords expanded state-to-state ties and commercial cooperation but have faced strains since the 2023–25 Gaza war, with reduced societal-level engagement and political pushback in some Arab capitals and publics [3][4].
1. A diplomatic breakthrough that redefined regional calculus
The Abraham Accords moved formal ties beyond decades of covert contacts to public normalization: the UAE, Bahrain and Morocco established official diplomatic relations with Israel in 2020–2021 and Sudan signed a general declaration, marking the first Arab normalizations since Egypt [5] and Jordan [6] [1][2]. Analysts say the Accords institutionalized a pragmatic “outside‑in” approach favored by some Israeli and U.S. policymakers—building bilateral ties with Arab governments rather than resolving the Palestinian question first—which changed incentives across the region [7][8].
2. Economic and security links expanded—mostly at the state and sectoral level
Following normalization, economic ties and business-to-business agreements deepened in sectors such as technology, trade and defense, and officials and companies increased cooperation [3][9]. Security cooperation—framed by some proponents as a hedge against Iran—also became part of the Accords’ appeal, even as scholars note that the underlying “security umbrella” rationale has been weakened by wider regional shifts, including rapprochement between Gulf states and Iran [4][10].
3. Jared Kushner’s role—and the U.S. policy angle—shaped the deals
Reporting and reviews of the Accords emphasize the Trump White House, including Jared Kushner and other advisors, as central architects who prioritized rapid, bilateral normalization and U.S. leverage [7][1]. The U.S. role provided political incentives and, at times, concrete inducements (for example, recognition moves) that accelerated agreements—an approach scholars say prioritized bilateral national interests over a negotiated Palestinian settlement [7][8].
4. Popular backlash and the Palestinian issue remained unresolved
The Accords sidelined Palestinian statehood as a precondition for normalization, a fact that sparked domestic and regional criticism and popular opposition across the Arab world; critics argue this eroded the longstanding Arab Peace Initiative framework and inflamed grievances that normalization did not address [11][8]. Responsible Statecraft and other commentators have argued the exclusions helped fuel political tensions that later manifested in violence and broad protests—an interpretation present in the literature though contested by proponents who emphasize strategic and economic gains [11].
5. Durability tested by the 2023–25 Gaza conflict
The Gaza war created tangible strains: societal-level interactions waned or reversed, tourism and some economic flows declined, and Arab publics and some governments reviewed ties with Israel—Egypt and other regional actors publicly criticized Israeli operations and warned about the impact on normalization prospects [3][4]. Analysts find that while state channels have largely persisted, popular legitimacy of the Accords has been damaged in some signatory countries [4][3].
6. Expansion ambitions and mixed momentum after 2023
U.S. and Israeli officials have periodically pursued expansion—discussing possible accession by additional states and even Central Asian members such as Kazakhstan (which formally acceded in November 2025, per later reporting)—and policymakers repeatedly floated Saudi, Syrian or Lebanese normalization under various conditions [9][12]. Yet multiple sources report that expansion efforts were uneven, contingent on shifting regional dynamics, domestic politics, and reactions to Israeli military actions [9][13].
7. Competing assessments: strategic gain vs. moral and political costs
Supporters frame the Accords as a strategic realignment that boosts regional cooperation, trade and a collective posture toward threats [10][9]. Critics counter that the deals traded off Palestinian rights, weakened pan-Arab consensus, and generated ethical and political costs that undercut long-term stability [11][7]. Scholarship and policy commentary therefore present competing judgments about whether the Accords’ pragmatic diplomacy will produce durable peace or structural liabilities [7][4].
8. Limitations of available reporting and what remains unresolved
Available sources document diplomatic, economic and security shifts and debate long-term impacts, but they offer varying emphases and sometimes conflicting forecasts about expansion and longevity; granular public-opinion data across signatory states and a full accounting of back-channel security cooperation are not consistently detailed in the cited material [3][4]. For assertions not covered above—such as private negotiation transcripts or classified intelligence assessments—available sources do not mention those specifics.