We have several times opined in this space that the decisions by several Arab Gulf states to sign onto or signal their intent to sign onto the Abraham Accords and thereby normalize relations with Israel were strategic rather than tactical. That is, the decision was based upon a hard-nosed prognosis for long-term and enduring national interests rather than what it would take to deal with a particular problem in the short term.
The issues we cited included the looming threat of Iran, the value of Israel’s military prowess, and the need for the Gulf states reliant on ultimately doomed oil economies with primitive technologies to benefit from the economic and scientific dynamo that is Israel.
So, we and others viewed the Abraham Accords in terms of the long-term interests of both Israel and its Arab neighbors because it represented a tectonic shift that Arab states would make a deal with its longtime enemy, even if it meant pushing the Palestinian issue to the sidelines.
To be sure, we continue to believe Hamas perpetrated the Oct. 7 massacre primarily to derail the Abraham Accords. And it achieved a limited measure of success even though Gaza and Hamas as an organization were utterly devastated in the process – which, ironically contributed to the appearance of Hamas having turned Israel into the villain in the piece.
However, significantly we think, since the start of the war, none of the signatories has withdrawn from the Abraham Accords. And indeed, despite verbal criticisms of Israel by some of them, substantial under the radar cooperation continues.
And importantly, according to The Times of Israel, soon after President Trump unveiled his latest Gaza peace plan, the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the UAE, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Qatar and Egypt issued a joint statement welcoming Trump’s efforts and pledged to engage with the U.S. to advance and implement the Gaza peace plan.
Yet the plan calls for, among other things, that Hamas release the hostages immediately, disarm and play no role in a post-war Gaza and Israeli troops get to remain in Gaza’s perimeter for the foreseeable future.
Also, and perhaps most telling, as The New York Times put it, “There was such a stinting nod to the aspiration of statehood for Palestinians that the proposal all but suggested they just keep dreaming.”
In recent weeks we and others have expressed concern that President Trump was apparently frustrated at not being able to move forward on his vision for the Middle East because of the continuing Gaza war and began publicly suggesting that Israel end it.
In retrospect though, we think he was tapping into the reservoir of Arab support for normalization with Israel, albeit a matter of practicality, and got them to go along with his plan.
The Trump proposal may also serve to reverse the public relations difficulties Israel is suffering. As of this writing, despite its widespread support, Hamas has yet to agree to accept the plan, which Israel had promptly done. Perhaps who is at fault here will now be clarified.