Five years since the festive signing ceremony on the White House lawn, several questions arise about the Abraham Accords and their regional impact. Have they changed perceptions of Israel in the Arab world, and if so how? Have they made Israel and ties with it become more acceptable, even desirable? How has the war waged in the Gaza Strip in the past two years affected the achievements of the Accords?
Different from Egypt and Jordan
The four agreements signed with the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan represented a substantial widening of the circle of countries at peace with Israel and a continuation of the process of reconciliation in the Middle East that began with the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt in 1979. They strengthened the process of recognition and acceptance of Israel in the region.
Within a short time of the signing ceremony and completion of the process of ratification of the agreements, the countries concerned (with the exception of Sudan) began to work with Israel on a series of concrete steps. Ambassadors were exchanged and continuation agreements were signed in a number of areas. Direct flights were inaugurated, trade steadily expanded, as did tourism, and cultural activity was undertaken on a "people to people" level. This was a change from the way in which relations developed with Egypt and Jordan, which remained limited in scope.
As ties expanded, decision makers in the Abraham Countries formed an understanding of the many capabilities and talents that Israel has to offer in various spheres: security, cyber, agriculture, water, and healthcare. The direct flights facilitated an impressive volume of tourism between Israel and these countries, and reciprocal visits by many delegations. All these things created greater familiarity with the State of Israel and Israelis, making them natural and welcome partners.
In addition, these developments reflected the huge potential that the agreements hold for advancing the physical connection between Israel and the Arab countries through infrastructure projects, such as the IMEC (India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor) venture to connect Europe, the Middle East and India with a network of railways, roads, ports, communications, and energy infrastructure.
While national security considerations on the part of the UAE and Bahrain, chief among them the Iranian threat and, arising from that, the increasing need for cooperation with and support from the US, were a factor that led to the formation of relations with Israel, the Palestinian issue remained a bone of contention. The UAE opposed Israel’s intentions of annexing the West Bank, which was avoided by the signing of the agreements, a development that was presented as a diplomatic achievement for it. It thus ensured that the Palestinian issue would not disappear and would remain important and relevant, which is an aspiration common to all Arabs in general.
Public anger
In the past five years, relations with the countries of the Accords have been tested by the Palestinian issue, for example during "Operation Guardian of the Walls" in May 2021. The countries criticized Israel for infringing Palestinian rights, and for violation of the holiness of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, but the criticism was not translated into practical decisions, and no damage was done to performance of the economic and other agreements.
Nevertheless, public opinion in these countries started to turn hostile to Israel. In Morocco, professional associations and political parties expressed vocal objections to Israeli policy towards the Palestinians. The war in the Gaza Strip of the past two years has only intensified and deepened the negative impact of the Palestinian issue on public opinion.
The gaps between the Abraham Accords countries’ stance on the Palestinian issue and Israel’s stance were glaringly apparent in a series of condemnations of Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, which were perceived as disproportionate and as endangering regional stability. Moreover, the regimes in these countries were compelled to respond to the feelings of anger and frustration among the public in the face of the images of destruction and killing in the Gaza Strip. For that reason they also joined efforts to provide humanitarian aid the Gaza Strip residents.
Now, the fear on the part of these countries is that Israel will take advantage of the war in the Gaza Strip and the achievement of breaking the axis of resistance led by Iran to promote unilateral steps in the Palestinian arena, such as annexation of the West Bank, transfer of the Palestinian population to neighboring countries, and shredding of the status quo on the Al-Aqsa Mosque. The Abraham Accords countries, together with other Arab states, have already condemned the idea of forced migration that Israel is promoting.
Israel seen as drunk on power
Israel military moves in Syria, Lebanon, and in the twelve days of war with Iran, have intensified growing concern in Arab countries at the change in the regional balance of power in favor of Israel, and at the policies that the Israeli government will adopt as a result of it. The fear is that Israel’s military achievements will give it an exaggerated sense of victory, making it drunk on power. The military achievements are seen as the realization of the policy declared by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of creating a new regional order in the Middle East, apparently backed by the US administration.
Israel is perceived as a belligerent state, possessed of military strength that it doesn’t hesitate to use in violation of international law and of the sovereignty of Arab countries, as manifest in the attack on the Hamas leadership in Qatari capital Doha last week. Israel thus seeks the status of regional hegemony, at the expense of the Arab countries. It’s important to note that this is not a new Arab fear, but it appears to be materializing in view of Netanyahu’s declaration of support for the complete Land of Israel idea. In Arab countries, this was translated as "the Greater Israel vision." 31 Arab and Islamic countries published a joint statement condemning this declaration.
In conclusion, it can be said that in forming the Abraham Accords, the countries involved offered Israel partnership and connection to the region, which is quite contrary to the way in which Israeli policy is perceived now: hegemonic, belligerent, forcing its will on its neighbors and on the region. The option of integration of Israel into the region still exists, and the Abraham Accords have withstood the challenges presented to them. If the war in the Gaza Strip stops and dialogue and negotiations take place on formulation of an agreement under which the Abraham Accords countries and other countries with peace agreements with Israel will play an agreed role, Israel will be able to revive the trend of developing ties with the Arab world.
Amira Oron is a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies and a member of Forum Dvorah. She was Israeli ambassador to Egypt from 2020 to 2024.
Published by Globes, Israel business news - en.globes.co.il - on September 14, 2025.
© Copyright of Globes Publisher Itonut (1983) Ltd., 2025.