How have the Abraham Accords affected Palestinian diplomatic efforts and regional peace prospects?
Executive summary
The Abraham Accords shifted Arab-Israeli diplomacy away from the traditional condition of Palestinian statehood, enabling formal ties between Israel and multiple Arab states while sidelining Palestinians as a bargaining priority [1] [2]. That sidelining has weakened Palestinian leverage and domestic legitimacy, complicated Arab public opinion and protest dynamics, and created a mixed regional peace prospect in which security cooperation expands even as the core Israeli-Palestinian dispute remains unresolved [3] [4].
1. A new diplomatic axis that bypassed the Palestinian question
The accords institutionalized a model of pragmatic normalization: Israel, the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and others formalized relations without extracting concrete Palestinian concessions, effectively decoupling Arab-Israeli ties from immediate progress on Palestinian statehood [2] [1]. Scholars and policy papers note the Accords were designed to “bypass” the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and re-center U.S. regional leadership and security agendas — particularly against Iran and other shared threats — rather than to resolve final-status issues for Palestinians [4] [1].
2. Palestinian diplomatic posture: delegitimized and constrained
Palestinian leaders publicly denounced the original accords and recalled envoys in protest, limiting the Palestinian Authority’s diplomatic traction with some Gulf states early on [5]. Analysts argue this sidelining reduced Palestinian leverage in both direct negotiations with Israel and in using pan-Arab pressure as leverage for concessions — a strategic cost the PA continues to grapple with [5] [6].
3. Arab states’ conditional engagement and the Saudi pivot
Several Arab capitals have signaled that broadening normalization — notably potential Saudi accession — will be conditioned on demonstrable movement toward a two-state outcome, illustrating a competing current within Arab diplomacy that links normalization to Palestinian statehood [7] [8]. Public comments by Saudi and other leaders have emphasized a need for a “path to peace for the Palestinian people,” indicating that expansion of the Accords is politically tied to Palestinian progress in some capitals [9] [8].
4. Popular backlash and the fragility of formal ties
Formal ties have not inoculated Accords states from domestic and regional backlash when Israeli military campaigns against Palestinians intensify. The Gaza war and its aftermath produced strong Arab public sympathy for Palestinians, complicating open cooperation and raising the political cost of normalization for some governments [4] [3]. Reporting shows that even where diplomatic channels remained, visible cooperation cooled and public protests undercut political space for deeper integration [3].
5. Strategic gains for security and U.S. influence — at a cost
The U.S. and Israel have leveraged the Accords to build security and technological partnerships intended to counter regional threats, with the accords serving as a pillar of U.S. regional policy and an instrument to counterbalance competitors like China [4] [1]. That strategic reorientation, however, produces an implicit agenda: regional stability is being pursued through balance-of-power alignments rather than resolution of the Palestinian grievance, a trade-off that analysts warn may be unstable over the long term [4] [1].
6. Mixed prospects for peace: pragmatic expansion vs. unresolved core issues
Efforts to expand the Accords — including moves to bring in countries beyond the Gulf and into Central Asia — underscore the model’s diplomatic appeal, even as many experts stress such expansion will deliver “limited benefits” without a credible Palestinian settlement [10] [9]. Some think tanks propose engaging Palestinians through new mechanisms (liaison offices, reconstruction planning) to rebuild trust, but available sources show little substantive progress on Palestinian statehood tied to Accords diplomacy to date [5] [11].
7. Competing narratives: peace-building triumph or dangerous sidestep?
Pro-Accords commentary frames the deals as a pragmatic path to regional cooperation and prosperity that may eventually generate pressure for a settlement [1]. Critics argue the Accords institutionalize the sidelining of Palestinians and helped catalyze political and popular backlash that can explode into conflict — a claim made in retrospect around the Gaza war and protests [12] [3]. Both narratives appear in reporting: the Accords expand diplomatic bandwidth, but their durability and peace dividend depend on whether Palestinian statehood is meaningfully addressed [4] [7].
Limitations and unanswered questions
Available sources document the Accords’ political and strategic effects up to late 2025 but do not provide a definitive causal accounting of long-term outcomes for Palestinian self-determination or whether specific engagement proposals (e.g., PA liaison units) have produced measurable gains — those developments are either proposed or in early phases in current reporting [5] [10]. Readers should note competing agendas: U.S. security priorities and some Arab rulers’ willingness to conditionize normalization each shape outcomes differently [4] [8].