Explain the Abraham accords
Executive summary
The Abraham Accords are a series of U.S.-mediated agreements that normalized diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab and Muslim-majority countries beginning in 2020, most notably the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, and later involving Morocco and steps toward Sudan [1] [2] [3]. They were signed publicly in Washington on September 15, 2020 and framed as a new regional architecture for diplomacy, trade, security and interfaith engagement promoted by the United States [1] [4] [5].
1. What the Accords actually are: treaties of normalization, not a peace settlement
The Abraham Accords consist of a general declaration plus a set of bilateral agreements to “normalize” relations—establishing diplomatic ties, trade links, and cooperation frameworks—between Israel and states that had previously not recognized it; the initial signatories were the UAE and Bahrain, followed by Morocco and a declaration-level engagement with Sudan [2] [6] [3]. The accords used the language of mutual understanding and interfaith dialogue—invoking “Abraham” as a shared ancestor of Jews, Christians and Muslims—and included commitments to people-to-people programs, visa arrangements and economic cooperation rather than settling the Israeli–Palestinian conflict [4] [5].
2. How they came about: U.S. diplomacy and a strategic recalibration
The accords were brokered and publicly heralded by the Trump administration as a signature diplomatic achievement in 2020, with the White House hosting the signing ceremony; the United States played a central mediating and promotional role and continues to encourage consolidation and expansion of the normalization process [4] [7] [5]. Successive U.S. administrations have shown bipartisan interest in widening the normalization process—sometimes preferring the term “normalization process” to “Abraham Accords”—and have supported follow-up initiatives to institutionalize economic and security ties among signatories [1] [5].
3. Who signed and how binding the agreements are
The accords are implemented through bilateral treaties and declarations: the UAE and Bahrain signed full normalization agreements with Israel in September 2020, Morocco agreed to renew ties later in 2020, and Sudan signed the general declaration though its bilateral normalization stalled amid domestic instability [1] [2] [3]. Some sources also note engagement by other countries—Kosovo, for instance, and later accession interest from Kazakhstan and ongoing diplomatic conversations with Saudi Arabia—though accession and the depth of commitments vary and in several cases are aspirational [8] [6].
4. Immediate impacts: trade, tourism, security ties and the limits of the gains
The accords unlocked rapid economic and diplomatic engagement: trade agreements, tourism flows (for example large numbers of Israeli visitors to the UAE), high-level summits such as the Negev Summit, and growing security coordination were recorded in the years that followed [9] [10]. Gulf and North African signatories pursued commercial deals and technical cooperation with Israel, and Bahrain even formalized a security agreement in the region; yet concrete gains differed sharply across partners—UAE–Israel trade grew far more than Bahraini-Israeli trade, and Sudan’s progress was interrupted by coup-driven instability [10] [3].
5. Criticisms, political costs and durability
Critics—especially Palestinian leaders and sizable Arab public opinion—have argued that the accords bypassed Palestinian demands for statehood and did not advance a two-state solution, generating political backlash and public unpopularity in many Arab countries [1] [11] [3]. The accords have been criticized as transactional and strategically driven—prioritizing security, economic and anti-Iran alignments—rather than resolving core regional grievances [11] [10]. Still, analysts and governments report that the agreements have largely endured through regional crises and that signatories have not formally withdrawn, indicating that long-term strategic calculations often outweigh short-term political headwinds [10] [3].
6. What’s next: expansion, consolidation and the Palestinian variable
Policymakers continue to debate whether the accords are a template for wider Arab–Israeli normalization—Saudi interest and U.S. efforts to widen the fold have been repeatedly referenced—but expansion depends on calculus about security, economic benefit, and domestic political costs tied to the Palestinian issue; different sources note both momentum for more accessions and the fragility introduced by public opinion and regional conflict [1] [6] [10]. Official U.S. and signatory-state documents emphasize building institutional mechanisms and people-to-people ties as pathways to durable cooperation, while critics insist the accords must be paired with renewed attention to Palestinian rights if they are to achieve lasting regional peace [5] [11].