On December 4th, Time magazine published an article titled “It’s Time to Abandon the Abraham Accords.” Author Sarah Leah Whitson, currently director of Democracy for the Arab World (DAWN), said that Hamas’ attack on October 7th was based on the premise on which the Abraham Accords were conceived: It was argued that the premise was proven that it was no longer important. Relationships within the region were wrong.
He argued that the situation for Palestinians has worsened since the agreement was signed, and that the Gaza war has brought the Palestinian issue back to the forefront of global concerns. In signing the agreement, the Arab leaders involved “welcomed the agreement as a means to encourage and appease Israel to take active steps to end its occupation and annexation of Palestinian territory,” she said. insisted.
Now, she writes, DAWN is calling on the Abraham Accords to withdraw from the agreement because “continued Arab compliance with the agreement signals continued support for Israel.”
whitson was wrong
Both her assumptions and conclusions are wrong. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has nothing to do with and is irrelevant to the negotiations that led to the Abraham Accords. The purpose of this agreement is to promote regional security and stability. Pursuing local economic opportunities. Facilitate joint aid and development programs. Promote a culture of mutual understanding, respect, coexistence and peace.
All concerned Arab leaders said that the normalization of relations with Israel has not affected their support for Palestinian aspirations. The Bahrain agreement makes a brief mention of this, while the Moroccan document refers to “the Kingdom of Morocco’s unchanged position on the Palestinian question.”
By pure logic, none of the signatories realize that their support is connected to the exclusion of Israel. Since October 7, none of the four signatories to the Abraham Accords has indicated any intention to withdraw from the agreement.
Sudan is in the midst of a devastating civil war. Government forces are outnumbered as militia rapid support forces continue to advance. On December 19, they captured Wad Madani, Sudan’s second largest city. At stake is the future of Sudan, and with it the future of normalization of diplomatic relations with Israel.
In the other parties to the agreement, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco, public opinion is firmly in favor of Hamas, deploring the high civilian death toll in the Gaza Strip and calling for a ceasefire. There is. As a result, all three countries are walking a tightrope regarding their official stance on the Israel-Hamas conflict. Nevertheless, the agreement remains solid.
At one point, it looked like Bahrain might be shaken. On November 2, Bahrain’s parliament issued an unprecedented statement stating that the ambassadors of Israel and Bahrain had each resigned and that economic ties had been severed.
“The ambassador of the Zionist organization has left Bahrain,” lawmaker Mamdouh al-Saleh told parliament, adding, “I hope he does not return.” However, it soon became clear that Congress had no responsibility for foreign affairs and that diplomatic and economic relations between Bahrain and Israel remained intact.
Israel issued a statement confirming that relations were stable, and Bahraini officials said only that the envoys had left, without giving a reason.
Iran has been working for years to incite Bahrain’s Shiite population against the Sunni monarchy. But Bahrain is home to the US Navy’s 5th Fleet, and the close US relationship through the deal is an important bulwark against Iran, too valuable to abandon.
They also bring Bahrain closer to the wealthy UAE. Bahrain is therefore content to perform a balancing act, seeking to keep the agreement intact on the one hand. The other should reflect disagreement over Israel’s military operations in Gaza.
The other two Abraham Accord countries face the same problem.
Despite internal and external pressure over the growing cost of the war in Gaza, the UAE has no intention of cutting off diplomatic relations with Israel. We have sponsored two resolutions in the United Nations Security Council, of which we are currently members. The first was a clear call for a ceasefire, but the United States vetoed it. The second, focused on strengthening the flow of humanitarian aid to Gaza residents, was approved on December 22 after several days of intense diplomatic efforts.
According to media reports, the UAE is working not only to maintain relations with Israel, but also to soften the Arab state’s public position so that there is a possibility of a return to broader dialogue once the war ends. In addition, the United Arab Emirates is in talks with Qatar about the possibility of a further Qatar-brokered agreement, including the release of some hostages held by Hamas in exchange for a cessation of fighting.
The agreement was based in part on shared concerns about the threat posed by Iran. Despite efforts to improve relations in early 2023, the UAE continues to view Iran as a threat to regional security. Therefore, there appears to be no end to the diplomatic relations between the UAE and Israel. These are strategic priorities for Emirates.
As for Morocco, a signatory of the Abraham Accords, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal recently scored a stunning own goal. On November 19, he addressed Moroccans by video from his luxury villa in Qatar. He called for severing ties with Israel and expelling its ambassador, declared that “Morocco can right its mistakes,” and called on Moroccans to take to the streets.
Moroccans reacted with outrage on social media, condemning the intervention as a violation of the kingdom’s sovereignty. Indeed, a wave of public demonstrations in Morocco supporting the Palestinians and denouncing the suffering of the Gaza residents is a strange part of Moroccan life, all organized with the blessing of the state. This is a true fact.
The government provides logistical support and security arrangements to demonstrators each weekend, and is itself calling for de-escalation, access to humanitarian aid, and protection of civilians under international law.
On the other hand, Morocco has no intention of withdrawing from the Abraham Accords. This was made clear on November 11 at the Arab-Islamic Summit in Riyadh, when the Moroccan delegation joined Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, Mauritania, Djibouti, Jordan and Egypt in blocking a proposal to sever ties with Israel. became. .
Therefore, in a complex and changing context, the Abraham Accords appear sound. Once the war is over, they may come into their own in helping rebuild Gaza. When that happens, they may become, in the recent words of one architect, Jared Kushner, “more important than ever.”
The author is Eurasia Review’s Middle East correspondent. His latest book is Trump and the Holy Land: 2016-2020. Follow him at www.a-mid-east-journal.blogspot.com.